Editor's Note: Should the average American pause to consider the possibility of anarchist political theory, he or she will typically assume it to be anarcho-capitalism, a stateless libertarianism. In fact, contemporary collaborative anarchism was first described by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840, while anarcho-capitalism was not founded until 1949 (though it has earlier inspirations), and left-wing anarchists greatly outnumber right-wing anarchists world wide. Left-wing American anarchists are often greatly frustrated by this state of misinformation. We are extremely sympathetic to that frustration, but mystified by the fact that so many left-wing anarchists blame the problem on the anarcho-capitalists.
This hostility between right- and left-wing anarchists has had one positive effect, and that is An Anarchist FAQ. Originally conceived as an attack on anarcho-capitalism, Mike Huben suggested it instead become an explanation of what leftist anarchists are, not what they reject. We thus recommend it for a proper study of anarchist theory, as well as the totally unrelated:
- What is anarcho-capitalism?
- Why should one consider anarcho-capitalism?
- Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?
- Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?
- Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?
- What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?
- Are anarcho-capitalists anti-war?
- What are the myths of statism?
- What are the myths of socialism?
- Why don't you just leave?
- Are there different types of anarcho-capitalism?
- How do anarcho-capitalists compare with other anarchists?
- Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
- Who are the major anarcho-capitalist thinkers?
- How would anarcho-capitalism work?
- How would anarcho-capitalists handle the "public goods" problem?
- Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?
- How might an anarcho-capitalist society be achieved?
- What are some major anarcho-capitalist writings?
- Where can I find anarcho-capitalist web sites?
For info about anarchism in general (not restricted to anarcho-capitalism), see Bryan Caplan's Anarchist Theory FAQ. Here are some general anarchism links and libertarian/minarchism links.
1. What is anarcho-capitalism?
Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that
- the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
- a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.
Part one is simply the definition of "anarchism," and part two is soft propertarianism, known more generally as "a free market" or "laissez-faire." Let's look more closely at each of the two parts of our definition. Moral permissibility is a "minimum" position. Almost all anarcho-capitalists believe also that a laissez-faire economic system is generally better than alternatives. Some strong propertarians, such as objectivists, go further and claim that laissez-faire is the only moral economic system.
A typical dictionary definitionPf of anarchism is: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished."Pf This definition follows the etymology of the word: "Anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία meaning "without archon" (ruler, chief, or king.) This is the core meaning of the term - against the State. This means against it in principle, as an institution, not merely against certain policies or personnel.
Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the winter of 1949 or 1950. "My whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."Pf (.pdf file)
2. Why should one consider anarcho-capitalism?
First, there is the issue of self-ownership, as the abolitionists called it, or moral autonomy as the philosophers call it. Is your life your own moral purpose? Do you owe anyone obedience regardless of consent? In natural rights language: Do you have rights - moral claims to freedom of action? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then logic leads you to the position of philosophical anarchism.
The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of this state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy."
—Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism
A second more utilitarian reason is the dismal record of States. Considering all the war, genocide, slavery, and repression perpetrated by States through history, might humanity do better without this barbaric institution? As the young Edmund Burke wrote in the world's first anarchist essay (before he went conservative):
These Evils are not accidental. Whoever will take the pains to consider the Nature of Society, will find they result directly from its Constitution. For as Subordination, or in other Words, the Reciprocation of Tyranny, and Slavery, is requisite to support these Societies, the Interest, the Ambition, the Malice, or the Revenge, nay even the Whim and Caprice of one ruling Man among them, is enough to arm all the rest, without any private Views of their own, to the worst and blackest Purposes; and what is at once lamentable and ridiculous, these Wretches engage under those Banners with a Fury greater than if they were animated by Revenge for their own proper Wrongs
—Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society
That was written in 1756, long before modern weapons of mass destruction and long before 170 million civilian people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. That's just civilian deaths perpetrated by their own governments; it doesn't count the deaths due to enemy States, deaths of soldiers, dislocated refugees, and so on. To quote Rothbard, "If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom."
3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?
No. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a stateless society would be much more peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous than society under statism. We see life under States as chaotic - the insanity of war and the arbitrariness of government regulation and plunder. Anarcho-capitalists agree with the "father of anarchism" Pierre Proudhon: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order," and his contemporary Frederic Bastiat, who wrote of the "natural harmony" of the market, that "natural and wise order that operates without our knowledge." (Economic Harmonies)
4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?
No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.
5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?
No. Laissez-faire literally means "let us be!" It means absolutely no government intervention in the economy - a free market. Of course, this is an ideal. Certainly the statist quo is not laissez-faire capitalism. Even in so-called "capitalist" States (really mixed economies), the government engages in all sorts of intervention: taxation, regulation, protectionism, prohibitions, occupational licensure, monopolies on "command posts" of society.
The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office. The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals.
—Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of Efficient Government Service
With the State - biggest, baddest exploiter of all time - out of the picture, exploitation, in terms of aggression, would all but vanish. It would be a voluntary society, an anarchy.
Some say that property and capitalism is automatically exploitative, because it allows profit and/or private property. We'll answer this claim in the section below called What are the myths of socialism?.
6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?
The most general justification was given above in part 2: no man should be ruled by another man. Individual sovereignty, moral autonomy, dignity, soul, whatever you wish to call it, demands that a person refuse to be ruled.
What about the "capitalist" part? There are several justifications given by various anarcho-capitalists:
Moral justifications:
- The life of man qua man, man as a rational being, morally necessitates a laissez-faire economic system. (Ayn Rand and objectivists)
- Man must be free and uncoerced so that the man, especially his moral faculty, is allowed to evolve. (Herbert Spencer)
- There is an overriding moral principle in civilized society: that no one should violate the (general moral) rights of others, i.e. initiate force or threat of force. This is called the NAP - Non-Aggression Principle. (Spencer, Rand, Rothbard)
- Capitalism is contractual; it is what rational people implicitly agree to do when they enter society. (Narveson)
Other justifications:
- Libertarianism capitalism is simply what society will do more or less in many or most places in the absense of a State. (David Friedman) This is a a utilitarian or "value-free" economic approach.
- One cannot argue against anarcho-capitalism without implicitly agreeing to its basic assumptions. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumention ethic.)
7. Are anarcho-capitalists anti-war?
If you take war to be violent conflicts between States, then anarcho-capitalists are ardently anti-war. Anarcho-capitalists do not see global politics with the conventional statist paradigm - as a collection of competing States, with every man on a State team. Anarcho-capitalist understand that rulers and subjects have very different interests. The rulers stand to gain power, prestige and popularity from war, whereas the subjects pay the costs, in lives and in money, and in standard of living and quality of life. Wars should be thought of as disputes between petulant power-maddened politicians.
Thus rulers get the benefits of militarism, but shove the costs on others. They also seize upon war as an opportunity to ramp up power. Finally, they use the war as a propaganda tool to gain support for their rule.
Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State's advantage. If "Ruritania" was being attacked by "Walldavia," the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste.
—Murray N. Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State
So far we've discussed traditional State on State wars. What about non-traditional wars, such as the "war" on terrorism? Anarcho-capitalists don't see the "war on terrorism" to be a bone fide war. Terrorism is criminal activity, and should be treated as such. It is justified to arrest the actual perpetrators of terrorism, but it is wrong to violate non-combatants. Terrorist acts should be handled as a criminal justice matter using peace officers, not as an inter-State war, with bombings and invasions and civilian casualties.
Most anarcho-capitalists believe that the modern State, by the very nature of way it fights wars, cannot possibly engage in a just war. Modern weaponry makes it impossible for a State to wage war without murdering innocent people. An obvious crime like the "9/11" attack is framed, not as a multiple homicide requiring police investigation, but as an act of war mandating military violence. And the
flaghumping public bought it. The anti-war.com website is edited and managed by anarcho-capitalist peacemongers Justin Raimondo and Jeremy Sapienza.
8. What are the myths of statism?
The paradigm of statism divides the world into competing States, and men into subjects of those States. The State generally succeeds in buying the services of "court intellectuals" to convince the people that wise leadership is necessary, for their own good, inevitable, and at any rate better than any alternative. Here are some common myths:
- We are the government.
This is perhaps the most insidious myth - a form of extreme victimhood. This Stateholm syndrome is a virulent form of Stockholm syndrome. This identification with the ruler is ubiquitous in statist societies. A person who's never been near a military jet might say, "we bombed Iraq" or "we are fighting to bring democracy." In fact, the ruling elite are making the decisions, and their milfare minions are doing the killing. It is very important to avoid using the slave we in speech, as it impairs critical thinking. Beware the ambiguous collective. It may takes practice to be instantly able to translate "Support our troops" to "support the ruler's hired goons." - The government acts for the common good.
There are problems with this vulgar utilitarian view. What is the common good? (No one agrees.) If we somehow knew the common good, how do we implement it? (No one knows.) Even if we implemented a plan, how do we know it would have the desired results? (We don't, and coercively imposed social planning often has substantial perverse consequences.) There are also institutional objections to the myth. Why would the State act for the common good rather than the interests of the rulers. The rulers make the decisions, and have incentives like all men. Public choice theory is a more reliable preditor of political behavior than naive faith in Pollyanna pluralism. - Government is the only way to solve problem X.
This is the fallacy of government solipotence - the erroneous belief that only the State can solve society's problems. In fact, every valid service that governments now perform can be done more morally, and usually better, by voluntary means. Virtually every current government service has been done, at some time in history, by voluntary means. Private roads, private courts, police, and legal systems, cheap private health insurance, mail delivery, quality control certification, wildlife preservation, and so on have all been done privately. - State and society are are the same, or at least closely allied.
Similar to myth #1, this is an attempt to obscure the important difference between society and State. Society is the sum total of all voluntary human interactions; the State is the institution of monopoly force and legal plunder. They are mortal enemies. The more power government gets, the less power society has. The struggle between liberty and authority is a zero-sum game.
9. What are the myths of socialism?
- The just price doctrine and cost-price theories of value.
The medieval notion of just price permeates socialist thought. It holds that there is a God-given or intrinsic price of a good, regardless of people's wants, needs, and desires, or supply and demand. In the industrial-era form of this doctrine, the value of a good is deemed to be equal to the cost of production, usually in terms of labor time expended (see labor theory of value below). This cost-price notion was refuted in the 1800s by the marginalist revolution in economics, but nevertheless many socialists remain mired in this creationism of the left. The marginalist economists, notably the Austrian School, consider value to be subjective. It depends on each person and his or her particular situation and values. In the desert, one may prefer a cup of water to a diamond. - The labor theory of value.
The labor theory of value (LTV) is the cost-price doctrine which holds that all value springs from labor. In other words, it purports that land, capital, and entrepreneurship are all non-productive, and can impute no value to a good (except insofar as they represent past labor.) The general invalidity of all just price doctrines has already noted. The modern (marginalist) thought is that value is not determined by cost at all, but by the subjective preferences of the buyers interacting with the available quantity of the good in question. This is known as the subjective theory of value. Even on it's own intrinsic price terms, the LTV fails to account for factors of production other than labor. Standard counter-examples abound, e.g. No matter how much time you spend producing mud-pies, they are still worthless; A fresh bottle of wine gains value simply by aging; and so on.
It is possible to formulate a purely descriptive LTV, which uses labor time as the measure of the productivity of land and capital, as Kevin Carson does in part one of his book Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, however the usefulness of this is dubious, and the temptation to slide into the prescriptive interpretation is enormous, as Carson does without justification in part 2 of the same book. - The exploitation theory.
An "exploitation theory" is any theory which purports to justify the claim that one "class" exploits another. In socialist theory, the claim is that a capitalist class exploits a proletarian class. Most exploitation theories are based on the antiquated LTV notion described above. Other socialists realize the weakness of this argument, and base their exploitation theory on unequal negotiating positions. While this latter approach may explain outcomes of bargaining, it evades the relevant issue - whether the trade was voluntary. Thus this approach also fails to support the claim that (so-called) "exploitation" is undesirable or unethical.
Note that even stipulating the "creationist" LTV, the socialist argument is insufficient for proving exploitation. It lacks an explanation of why workers voluntarily exchanging labor time for wages is exploitative. Bohm-Bawerk of the Austrian school of economics showed long ago (1884 in "Exploitation Theories") that profit from wages could be explained by interest on advanced pay, i.e. workers getting paid prior to their produce being sold. - Denial of scarcity (property, money).
This is a favorite of utopian socialists. The purpose of property is to solve the scarcity problem - that man's desires exceed available goods. This myth simply assumes away scarcity, as if this human condition was merely an effect of a particular property system rather than a fact of reality and human nature. The socialist denial of the validity of property involves an internal contradiction and much resulting "double-think." E.g. Proudhon writes that he's against contract property, but for possession property; yet he refuses to acknowledge that his "possession" is a type of property.
Another naive denial of scarcity is the claim of some socialists that a modern society can get along without money. Hayek made a living by refuting that view: in short, an economy needs the informational function of money to balance supply and demand. Without the amalgamation of the desires and preferences of the producers and consumers into price, chaos results. Shortages and surpluses abound when the communication of preferences is prevented or co-opted by rulers. Money is simply and ultimately the most liquid commodity in a market. There will always be a most liquid commodity in any market; ergo, there will be something used as money. - Human action and production can be planned or engineered.
Many statist socialists have plans and programs to transform society into their vision of community and the good life. Unfortunately, the nature of man is not infinitely elastic. These socialists tend to overestimate their ability to "mold the clay" of mankind, and underestimate his natural proclivities and the evolutionary nature any major advance in his moral faculties. In fact, as quasi-anarcho-capitalist Herbert Spencer pointed out, many of the statist schemes are counter-productive to human progress, and have results perverse even by the social engineers' standards.
One could simply turn this around, and ask, "Why doesn't the State just leave?" The "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question, who is entitled to occupy this space. Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but anarcho-capitalists reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. A good anarcho-capitalist response may be, "The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do."
11. Are there different types of anarcho-capitalism?
Yes, but the differences are sometimes rather academic. One division concerns the justification of libertarianism. There is an ongoing discussion between natural rights theorists like Rothbard, and utilitarians like David Friedman. A parallel discussion pits natural righters against contractarians like Jan Narveson. These were discussed above in the moral justifications section.
Other divisions concern strategy in bringing about a libertarian society. There are a few parliamentarians among anarchists, but most take the Voluntaryist position and refuse to vote or participate in electoral politics. Lysander Spooner argued that voting could be a valid form of self-defense against the predations of the State. Rothbard was a parliamentarian, always involved in political coalitions and electoral politics; George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy are strongly opposed to feeding the beast. (See The Ethics of Voting by George H. Smith and Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler by Wendy McElroy.)
Agorists believe that counter-economics (using black and gray markets, i.e. the underground untaxed economy) is the path to a free society. Samual E. Konkin III founded this "libertarian left" philosophy. His pamphlet The New Libertarian Manifesto is the classic presentation of this anti-establishment framing of anarcho-capitalism.
A high-profile division among anarcho-capitalists concerns "what things can be valid property". In particular, the validity of intellectual property (IP) is hotly contested, with one camp per Benjamin Tucker denying that non-scarce goods qualify as property, and the other per Lysander Spooner strongly supporting copyrights and patents. Agorism, mentioned above, is anti-IP. Another property question is whether land and natural resources are valid private property. While most anarcho-capitalists consider land to be valid property, geoanarchists disagree. Geoanarchism is the radical branch of geoism (aka Georgism), which interprets the Georgist "single tax" ground rent as either a "citizen's dividend" to be disbursed to everyone in the community, or as the income to a community-owned firm providing municipal services.
Finally, there are esoteric arguments about speculations on "what a stateless society would look like." Will PDAs (Private Defense Agencies) be vertically integrated, or would there be separate police, court, and penal firms? Will there be non-territorial provision of defense, or will it be provided in territorial enclaves, such as neighborhoods, wards, and quasi-city-States? The latter is called Heathian anarchism, after Georgist dissenter Spencer Heath.
12. How do anarcho-capitalists compare with other anarchists?
The main distinction between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists is the support of capitalism. Other anarchists have problems with either private neo-Lockean property, profiting from other people's labor, or both. The 19th century individualist anarchists are mutualists; they opposed "usury" - profit from land or capital or wage-labor. "Cost is the limit of price" was their motto, summing up their interpretation of the LTV. Anarcho-socialists not only oppose profit, but also oppose private ownership of capital ("the means of production" in soc-speak.) Of the four basic economic divisions of anarchism, collectivists and mutualists are anti-capitalist, while geoanarchists and anarcho-capitalists are pro-capitalist.
13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
No, but it's close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don't necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called "the nightwatchman State," is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism.
14. Who are the major anarcho-capitalist thinkers?
The first known anarcho-capitalist is Gustave de Molinari, who wrote the seminal piece, The Production of Security, in 1849. But the term "anarcho-capitalist" had not been invented yet. The "father of anarcho-capitalism" is Murray Rothbard, who combined the individualist anarchism of Lysander Spooner, the economic of the Austrian School, and the anti-interventionism of the Old Right, to create the modern meme of anarcho-capitalism. Not that he did it alone! Other prominent anarcho-capitalists are David Friedman, Wendy McElroy, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Brian Caplan, Jan Narveson, Anthony de Jasay, George H. Smith, Wolf DeVoon, Jeremy Sapienza, Lew Rockwell, and others too numerous to mention. Note that not all of these refer to themselves as "anarcho-capitalist," e.g. Lew Rockwell, who edits the most popular anarcho-capitalist e-zine LewRockwell.com, calls himself a "paleoconservative."
15. How would anarcho-capitalism work?
In one sense, this is easy to answer. Since most people are familiar with capitalism, one could simply say, "Just like today's semi-capitalist societies, except with no coercive monopolies." As already noted, most services currently provided by State have been done voluntarily in the past, usually with better quality and service than the State. This is what you'd expect, since monopolies lack the usual competitive incentives to improve. The services that people have not seen provided privately, such as court, police, and defense against military invasion, require more explanation.
"Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.
"There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occurred, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.
"A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.
"Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide."
—David Friedman, Law as a Private Good
There are several obvious advantages to private law.
- You are likely to be treated better by a PDA than a monopoly government agency, since you are a customer (or at least a potential customer) rather than a suspect.
- Victimless "crime" laws are significantly less likely, since customers would bear the cost of enforcing laws against vices rather than passing the cost on to society at large. (E.g. Someone opposed to marijuana is likely to vote against legalization, but less likely to pay $100/year to make it illegal.)
- But most importantly, everyone gets their own preferred law, rather than having to submit to winner-take-all imposed law. E.g. A religious puritan may subscribe to a PDA under a plan in which adulterers (who subscribe to this plan) would be stoned to death. His next-door neighbor may subscribe to a service that allows open copulation in the front yard. Both can have their way, since jurisdictions are simply the combined properties of the subscribers.
Non-government military provision is more familiar to most people, under the guise of "militia." A militia is a voluntary defense service which is unlikely to invade a foreign country, build weapons of mass destruction and death, fund itself with stolen money, or most other questionable actions in which government militaries routinely engage. A militia is geared to do one thing: defend the local people. Anarcho-capitalists also see a role for defense firms and mercenaries, to take care of security issues not so localized. Note that, since the costs of warfare are borne by those firms who engage in it, they are considerably more likely to sue for peace than a State, which is able to shove costs onto their plundered and conscripted citizenry.
16. How would anarcho-capitalists handle the "public goods" problem?
Many anarcho-capitalists deny there is a need to "handle" such problems at all. The implicit assumption in the question is that a) freeloading, or b) services which cannot get funding voluntarily due to individual rationality issues, somehow justify the use of aggression. Those who support the NAP deny this assumption.
Another approach is to point out that, in these cases, the State does not really solve the public goods problem. It merely creates a bigger, more intractable public goods problem - how to limit State power. As Friedman points out, in a statist society good law is a public good and bad "special interest" law is a private good. So the result is that good law is undersupplied and bad law is oversupplied. By shifting the problem to State authority, you simply contribute to the hell that Bastiat warned us about, where "everybody plunders everybody."Pf
17. Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?
Yes, more or less. Since both anarchism and capitalism are theoretical models, it's hard to claim that any real situation is 100% stateless and 100% free market capitalist. But there are various societies that were, for all intents and purposes, stateless, and societies that implemented anarcho-capitalist "programs" such as private law. Here is a short list:
- Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice." - Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
David Friedman has studied the legal system of this culture, and observes:The legal and political institutions of Iceland from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries ... are of interest for two reasons. First, they are relatively well documented; the sagas were written by people who had lived under that set of institutions and provide a detailed inside view of their workings. Legal conflicts were of great interest to the medieval Icelanders: Njal, the eponymous hero of the most famous of the sagas, is not a warrior but a lawyer--"so skilled in law that no one was considered his equal." In the action of the sagas, law cases play as central a role as battles.
Second, 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. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens.
—David Friedman, Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case
- Rhode Island (1636-1648)
Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace."
While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf - Albemarle (1640's-1663)
The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by military.Pf - Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.Pf - The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations
Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the "civilized" East. Cf: "The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West" (.pdf file) - Laissez Faire City
A more recent unsuccessful attempt to start a new country, LFC attempted to lease a hundred square miles of land from a third-world State in order to start an anarcho-capitalist society, taking Hong Kong as a guide. When that fell through, some members moved to Costa Rica, where the State is relatively weak, there is no standing army, and what little State interference there can usually be "bought off." There remain small libertarian communities in the central valley (Curridabat) and on the Pacific coast (Nosara).
18. How might an anarcho-capitalist society be achieved?
There is no consensus among anarcho-capitalists how a free society might be achieved. Everyone agrees that educating other people is useful. Beyond that, there are many strategies. There are Gulchers (named after the fictional "Galt's Gulch" in Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged) such as the Laissez Faire City bunch, who see little or no chance in changing an entrenched welfare-warfare State. These "retreatists" propose to set up isolated communities away from statist authority.
PTs (permanent tourists, perpetual travelers, prior tax-payers) try to maintain tourist status in all States they traverse, paying no taxes and keeping wealth effectively beyond the reach of grasping States. A sophisticated PT uses the "four flag" strategy: he'll use a passport from a different State than the one which claims him as subject, keep his wealth in a third State, and, when not traveling, reside in a fourth State.
At the other extreme, some anarcho-capitalists are active in electoral politics despite the traditional anarchist aversion to such means. Most anarcho-capitalists choose to "tend their own garden," preferring to set up voluntary alternatives to State agencies and functions. Home schooling, for example, is strongly advocated, as are neighborhood mediation associations, and participation in organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. Many anarcho-capitalists use private currencies such as Liberty Dollars, or anonymous digital currencies such as e-gold.
Virtually all anarcho-capitalists see the transition to a free society to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Some see little to do about proximate politics, and simply wait for the inevitable decline of statism while trying to "stay beneath the radar" of government. Anarcho-capitalists are, of course, ardent supporters of tax resistence. Many strive to support "counter-economic" activity, i.e. the illegal ("black") market, which they see as the only truly free market. (Agorism.) Many achieve an "off the books" income where no tribute is paid to the State. Thus, information about guerrilla capitalism, such as not leaving paper trails, not using tracable money, private mail drops, anonymous bank accounts and debit cards, etc. are of vital interest to these anarcho-capitalists.
19. What are some major anarcho-capitalist writings?
- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law," Radical anti-state classical liberalism
- Davidson & Rees-Mogg, The Sovereign Individual, Historians look at technology & implications
- David Friedman, "The Machinery of Freedom", Classic utilitarian defense of anarchism
- Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State
- Franz Oppenheimer, The State, Analysis of State; political means vs. economic means
- Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy the State, Oppenheimer's thesis applied to early US history
- Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, The ultimate Austrian economics book
- Murray Rothbard, Power and Market, Classification of State economic interventions
- Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, Moral justification of a free society
- Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Academic philosopher on libertarianism
- Herbert Spencer, Social Statics, Includes the essay "The Right to Ignore the State"
- Morris & Linda Tannahill, The Market for Liberty, Classic on PDAs (private defense agencies)
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics (.pdf file)
An online bookstore that carries most of these is Laissez Faire Books.
 |
Also be sure to check out Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography |
20. Where can I find anarcho-capitalist web sites?
|
Luminaries
'Zines
Other |
Organizations
Bookstores Sovereign Individual Services/Societies |
Check out Hogeye Bill's home page.
Comments (closed)
John Steinsvold
2008-05-09 12:41:30
The following link, takes you to a "utopian" article, entitled "Home of the Brave?" which I wrote and appeared in the American Daily which is published in Phoenix, Arizona on March 14, 2006.
www.americandaily.com/article/12389
John Steinsvold
Jonathan
2008-05-09 19:14:20
That is a truly evil web site that you've been published at, John. They don't really hide the fact that they want all non-Christians to die, and that they believe that those without genocidal bent are inherently non-Christian. At least, when they talk about how global warming is a hoax, they pretend they don't want everyone on earth to die, but they're pretty blunt about it in other areas.
Anyway, your essay certainly isn't advocating the death of the species, proof that the American Daily nuts do allow a certain diversity of opinion. You posit a national economy that does away with money, which is always going to be intriguing, then talk much about its benefits, then a tiny little bit about how it would actually work. You don't actually prove that it would have benefits, though. You kinda just announce what the benefits are, some of which seem clear, but most of them fall under various levels of "maybe." I reckon it's worth working on.
John Steinsvold
2008-05-10 18:56:33
Jonathan,
Let’s take the high road. Let’s not label their website as “evil”. Let’s be nice and call them “misguided”. However, someone should alert them to I John 4:7 which allows anyone with love in their hearts for their fellowman to reach the pearly gates.
As I envision a way of life without money, all the problems I mentioned will be completely eliminated or greatly alleviated. You could argue that it will take some time to eliminate poverty. Since Bill Gates and Donald Trump and all the other rich folks will be allowed to keep their holdings, 100% true economic equality may never be reached; but, certainly, poverty will be eliminated!
The administration of a way of life without money is a huge problem. As proposed in my essay, a web of "economic bodies" would be created; one for the federal, one for each state and one for each local level. These economic bodies will coordinate the economic traffic in our nation. They will interact with each other as much as modern technology will allow. A balance of supply and demand will be achieved taking every conceivable factor into consideration including conservation and our environment as well as the needs of the people and their craving for luxuries.
IN SHORT, THESE ECONOMIC BODIES WILL BE COORDINATING WHAT IS NOW OUR FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM TO FULFILL THE ECONOMIC NEEDS OF OUR NATION.
Jonathan
2008-05-10 19:10:58
I don't know that they are misguided. I believe they hope to cause suffering, for the pleasure of watching others suffer. Whether or not that qualifies as "misguided" is difficult to say. First, is it true that such sadism causes the sadist to suffer? If so, is it possible that this suffering is necessary to the sadist's development?
Anyway, like I say, your essay doesn't offer any evidence that what you're suggesting would be an improvement. You say poverty will be eliminated. How come? How will a lack of Treasury-approved currency correct the problem of scarcity of goods?
John Steinsvold
2008-05-12 19:01:56
Jonathan,
Don't let the "holier than thou" folks at the "American Daily" get to you. Perhaps I should have used the website: "Athenaeum Library of Philosophy" as a reference rather than the "American Daily". They also published my essay:"Home of the Brave?"
You stated that my essay doesn't offer any evidence that a way of life without money would be an improvement? Sorry, my intention is just to propose an idea and let the reader use his or her judgement.
Yes, poverty will be eliminated since we will distribute our goods and services according to need. We will all become economically equal. Thus, materialism which warps our sense of value and corrupts our system will also be eliminated and crime will be reduced dramatically.
You asked: "How will a lack of Treasury-approved currency correct the problem of scarcity of goods?"
Scarcity of goods? This country is capable of producing the necessities and luxuries for everyone many times over.
Yes, if everyone is free to do their "thing", how can we satisfy the labor needs of our country particularly if shortages exist in various occupations? However, it takes only a small percentage of our work force to provide the necessities and luxuries for the now 300 million Americans and that percentage is constantly decreasing due to automation and advances in technology.
There are people who love to farm. There are people who love manufacturing products. There are people who love being storekeepers and being behind a counter to serve people. There are people who love to bake. There are people who love being carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, farmers and yes, even janitors. There will be people who love bringing the necessities and luxuries to your local store so you can help yourself.
Today, 50% of Americans are unhappy at their jobs. (In a recent report from the Dept. of Labor, this figure has grown to 80%.) In a way of life without money, these unhappy people will be free to "follow their bliss" to find the work they love doing. I believe everybody has some kind of talent or ability they wish to use for the benefit of society. If I'm wrong, a way of life without money will fail. You could argue that there will be slackers who perhaps have given up on themselves; but they will probably be looked on as people with disabilities by their friends and neighbors. I believe that gaining the proper balance between work and pleasure is essential for a complete life.
The best way to motivate people is to allow them to do the work they love to do. One of the goals of a way of life without money is to provide everyone with the opportunity to find a match between their abilities and the opportunity to serve society. If training is necessary, a free education is provided. Every effort will be made for each individual to find the work they love doing. There will be no pressure. I believe everyone has an ability they wish to use for the benefit of society.
In some respects, our economy will be the same as it is today. Our free enterprise system will remain in place; but no money will be exchanged. Profit will no longer be a factor and cooperation will replace competition. Government, industry and the people will work together as a team toward common goals.
Jonathan
2008-05-12 19:16:29
OK, let me put it this way. What you are describing is precisely the intention of Soviet Socialism. Now, given that the Soviet Socialism experiment in Russia failed way before Stalin, but acknowledging that it is difficult to determine if the problem was historical or philosophical, why do you think that attempting the experiment in the US in 2008 will work if we remove currency?
John Steinsvold
2008-05-13 20:22:09
In my opinion, the Russian economy failed because communism failed. It failed because the members of the party enriched themselves at the expense of the common people. The common people despised the members of the party. Therefore, there was no cooperation between them and failure was inevitable."
In our democratic country, cooperation will be a key. Government, industry and the people must learn to work together as a team.
Obviously, the transition to a way of life without money is a major problem. Also, the administration of a way of life without money will be a challenge to the ingenuity of the American people.
If I may quote my essay:
As individuals, we will gain complete economic freedom. In return, a way of life without money demands only that we, as individuals, do the work we love to do. It is a win/win situation.
John Steinsvold
Money is like an iron ring we've put through our noses. We've forgotten that we designed it, and it's now leading us around. --Bernard Lietaer
Jonathan
2008-05-13 20:41:05
I read it the first time; it was empty platitudes then. You have the glimmerings of a beginning of an idea, here. Not a new idea, but nonetheless an idea. What you need to do now is study the soviet experiments (and the word "soviet," like the words "communist," "democracy," and the phrase "scarcity of goods" has both a specific meaning and a body of literature) and try to see why other people failed at what you're proposing. Most of the world throughout 20th Century was caught up in attempting what you are proposing, and utopia still eludes us.
John Steinsvold
2008-05-14 18:52:43
Yes, in the past, there have been numerous attempts at various forms of "Utopia". Their failures are well documented. For example, at Johnstown, people hunted at night so they wouldn't have to share their food with others. It failed because food was scarce in those days. Other groups have tried by isolating themselves in a colony but could not sustain themselves because of their isolation. Each has a sad story to tell.
Perhaps for the first time in history, we have the ability, we have the abundant resources, we have the educational facilities and perhaps most important, we have the technology to successfully conduct our internal economic affairs without the use of money.
A way of life without money hasn't been tried yet by 300 million Americans determined to make it work. Americans who want to free themselves of the staggering problems that money creates today.
John Steinsvold
Skunk
2008-06-04 14:00:03
I discovered some months ago (9-12, maybe) that I'm anarcho-capitalism.
I ever thought about myself first, and i ever thought that people should to have their own economic system.
My friends tell me that I'm not anarchist, because "Capitalism gives power to men with more money", but they don't understand anything. I had violence conversations with them too!
(Their anarchy is with an AK47, fuckin' anarcho-communists -.- )
Hogeye
2008-06-09 09:53:35
John Steinvolt’s proposal is not new, nor “brave.” It is the ancient command economy - some people (rulers) allocating goods at their whim. Jonathan is correct that this was tried in the Soviet Union (and N. Korea, Cuba, etc.) with disasterous results. The only assurance Steinvolt can give is that “our” rulers of economic boards will be angels, unlike the evil rulers everyplace else command economies have been attempted. Needless to say, objective observers of politics can’t buy the “our rulers will be angels” line. It would be irrational to give all decision-making power of production and redistribution to the Smith Family (or any other group of men.) This is the antithesis of freedom.
There is another reason economic boards won’t work, besides requiring angelic rulers. As Mises and other economists have pointed out, there is the problem of knowledge. No matter how wise and smart the economic masters are, no matter how fast their supercomputers and programs, they will not have the necessary information to run the economy. Much, if not most, economic knowledge is local. Only the locals know what grows best in their soil, what types and methods of production gives a comparative advantage locally, and so on. The function of prices are transmittal of information. What factors are cheaper? What can be produced efficiently wrt other producers? And so on. This is why the old Soviet Union could produce Kalashnikovs and tanks but not potatoes and toilet paper. Generals could never have too many Kalashnikovs, but you need feedback from normal people (amalgamated in market prices) to effectively produce and distribute consumer goods.
In short, Steinvolt’s proposal has two fatal flaws: 1) It assumes the people running the production/distribution boards will be angels, and 2) It ignores the information function of pricing. An underlying problem is Steinvolt’s apparent denial of the problem of scarcity. He seems to think that scarcity is no longer a fact of human existence. But just because people are, in general, wealthier than in the past does not mean that scarcity doesn’t exist, or can be “solved” by setting up fascist economic boards. I prefer that the scarcity problem be addressed in freedom with ample pluralism, i.e. by free markets.
John Steinsvold
2008-06-10 10:23:38
Hogeye stated:
"John Steinvolt’s proposal is not new, nor "brave." It is the ancient command economy - some people (rulers) allocating goods at their whim. Jonathan is correct that this was tried in the Soviet Union (and N. Korea, Cuba, etc.) with disasterous results."
Are you comparing the USA with communism or dictatorships? In my opinion, the Russian economy failed because communism failed. It failed because the members of the party enriched themselves at the expense of the common people. The common people despised the members of the party. Therefore, there was no cooperation between them and failure was inevitable.
In our democratic country, cooperation will be a key. Government, industry and the people must learn to work together as a team.
Hogeye further stated:
"The only assurance Steinvolt can give is that "our" rulers of economic boards will be angels, unlike the evil rulers everyplace else command economies have been attempted. Needless to say, objective observers of politics can’t buy the "our rulers will be angels" line."
Yes, It is essential that a balance of power is maintained. No, there is no need for the members of these economic bodies to be "angels" although it would probably help. They will be like you or I but also be experts in their various fields. These "rulers" as you refer to them will be empowered and controlled by Congress from above. The media, as it does today with government officials, will monitor the individual performance of each member from below. If the public is not satisfied with the performance of a member of an economic body, a method must be devised to have him or her replaced. This could accomplished simply by voting. Also, remember that the almighty dollar will not be around to be waved to gain favoritism. (I am thinking of our present day lobbyists.) Furthermore, we will no longer be living in a materialistic society. A person will be judged by what he is; not by what he has.
Hogeye continued:
"No matter how wise and smart the economic masters are, no matter how fast their supercomputers and programs, they will not have the necessary information to run the economy. Much, if not most, economic knowledge is local."
As I envision, a way of life without money, these economic bodies will have three levels: federal, state and local. They will form an economic web. They will keep their finger on the economic pulse of our nation from the federal to the local levels. They will work together as much as modern technology will allow. Yes, the economic bodies at the local level will "know what grows best in their soil".
Hogeye summarized as follows:
"In short, Steinvolt’s proposal has two fatal flaws: 1) It assumes the people running the production/distribution boards will be angels, and 2) It ignores the information function of pricing. An underlying problem is Steinvolt’s apparent denial of the problem of scarcity. He seems to think that scarcity is no longer a fact of human existence. But just because people are, in general, wealthier than in the past does not mean that scarcity doesn’t exist, or can be "solved" by setting up fascist economic boards. I prefer that the scarcity problem be addressed in freedom with ample pluralism, i.e. by free markets."
No, as explained above, the people running the production/distribution boards will be carefully monitored and controlled by Congress from above and the performance of each member will be scrutinized by the media from below. Furthermore, money will no longer be available to corrupt our system.
The information function of pricing? Yes, some sort of measuring device (in the absence of money) would be convenient to measure efficiency or to evaluate how much material and labor it takes to build a car, house, plane or a tank. How do we know the value of something if we don 't have some sort of measuring device to use in place of money? How are we to determine what to import and export without some idea of the value of the products involved?
I don't believe this problem is beyond the resourcefulness and ingenuity of the American people. I believe our economists can handle it.
The problem of scarcity? The purpose of the economic bodies is to resolve this problem taking every conceivable factor into consideration. (Today, the major concern in our economy is profit.) This includes our resources, our environment, conservation, the needs of the nation, the needs of the people and their craving for luxuries. Yes, these economic bodies will perform a balancing act between supply and demand. Who gets what? If I may quote from my essay:
The more "expensive" items, such as housing, cars, boats, etc. would be provided for on a priority basis. For example, the homeless would provided housing ahead of those living in crowded quarters. How will this priority be established? Perhaps a local board elected by the people in the neighborhood such as a school board. Or perhaps the school boards could absorb this responsibility in addition to their present duties.
Free markets? Today, one in five children goes to bed hungry at night. We are over 7 trillion dollars in debt. We live in fear of depression, inflation, inadequate medical coverage and losing our jobs. I believe the usefulness of money is over.
John Steinsvold
If you want people to fight, throw them a bone; if you want them to cooperate, have them build a tower.
--Saint-Exupéry
Hogeye
2008-06-15 11:42:15
Hogeye> "John Steinvolt’s proposal is not new, nor "brave." It is the ancient command economy - some people (rulers) allocating goods at their whim. Jonathan is correct that this was tried in the Soviet Union (and N. Korea, Cuba, etc.) with disasterous results."
Steinvolt> "Are you comparing the USA with communism or dictatorships?"
No, I am comparing political rulers in any type of State, anywhere. US rulers are not exempt from corruption or power-mongering - they have the same perverse incentives as any other rulers. You cling to the naive notion that somehow "our" rulers are different.
Steinvolt> "In my opinion, the Russian economy failed because communism failed."
Yes, and communism failed mainly because of its command economy - exactly the same kind of program that you favor.
Steinvolt> "It failed because the members of the party enriched themselves at the expense of the common people."
Just a US ruling elites enrich themselves at the expense of the common people. Just as all rulers do. The only difference between statist communism and statist "capitalist" (aka fascist) mixed economies is that communism bled the cow to death faster, while economies with a vestige of capitalism feed the cow something to keep it alive somewhat longer. The root cause of the economic problem is the same - ruling elites controlling things rather than free people in a free market.
Steinvolt> "In our democratic country, cooperation will be a key. Government, industry and the people must learn to work together as a team."
We must? Or else??? Do you kill non-cooperative freedom-oriented people like me in your "democratic" country?
Steinvolt> "These "rulers" as you refer to them will be empowered and controlled by Congress from above. The media, as it does today with government officials, will monitor the individual performance of each member from below."
Yes, we've seen how well these rulers are controlled by Congress in getting into undeclared wars, occupations, and various mass murders, and how the media prevents such things. We've seen how media and Congress prevent egregious violations of liberty like the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, suspension of habeas corpus, and endorsement and use of torture. LOL! Give me a break!
Steinvolt> "How do we know the value of something if we don 't have some sort of measuring device to use in place of money? How are we to determine what to import and export without some idea of the value of the products involved?"
We don't know - not without money and free markets. Please learn something about the "calculation problem." Here's a start from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
Steinvolt> "Free markets? Today, one in five children goes to bed hungry at night. We are over 7 trillion dollars in debt. We live in fear of depression, inflation, inadequate medical coverage and losing our jobs."
Right. That's why we need free markets rather than the current fascist "mixed economy." We need to get the government out of money and banking, medical services, etc. to remedy the problems you list above. It occurs to me that you think the current system is free market. It is not. It is a mixed economy tending toward economic fascism. "Free market" means *no* government intervention. Today, we have *massive* government intervention in the economy. Beware of Orwellianisms like, e.g. "free trade agreements" which are really *managed* trade agreements. For more about this "vulgar statism," see my review of Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine." It's published on Strike-the-Root: http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/bill/bill1.html
Jonathan
2008-06-15 15:54:52
Skunk: May I ask where you're at in the world? The geographic concentrations of the various anarchic movements interests me.
John: One obvious problem is that what you're proposing IS communism, which suggests you have some pretty basic misunderstandings of the terms you're using. Capitalists generally believe that communism inherently BECOMES dictatorial, but to use "communism" as a synonym or class of "dictatorship" is... well, it's so wrong that it reduces the rest of your argument to gibberish.
The original Russian soviets were small anarcho-communist communities which cooperated with the centralized, Communist State. As the state demanded more power (Europe was, after all, at war), some soviets capitulated and others rebelled. Lenin and Trotsky put those rebellions down with excessive violence, and seized more power in order to put down the rebellions more efficiently, paving the way for Stalin's totalitarian and genocidal dictatorship.
Your model, to the degree that it's fleshed out, seems to eliminate the soviets and go straight for an all-powerful centralized Communist State. So far, the only defense against totalitarianism you offer is this weird, unsupported ethnocentrism that would sound like racism if Americans were one race.
John Steinsvold
2008-06-16 17:27:04
Jonathan stated:
"John: One obvious problem is that what you're proposing IS communism, which suggests you have some pretty basic misunderstandings of the terms you're using. Capitalists generally believe that communism inherently BECOMES dictatorial, but to use "communism" as a synonym or class of "dictatorship" is... well, it's so wrong that it reduces the rest of your argument to gibberish."
I apologize if my wording has been misleading. Let me try again. As I envision it, the ONLY common denominator between a way of life without money and communism is economic equality which, in my opinion, we desperately need here in the USA. Economic equality will eliminate poverty. It will also eliminate materialism which warps our sense of value and corrupts our system. It will also reduce crime dramatically. Otherwise, our government will remain the same. The Democrats will still do battle with the Republicans. Our free enterprise system will still exist.
Jonathan stated:
"The original Russian soviets were small anarcho-communist communities which cooperated with the centralized, Communist State. As the state demanded more power (Europe was, after all, at war), some soviets capitulated and others rebelled. Lenin and Trotsky put those rebellions down with excessive violence, and seized more power in order to put down the rebellions more efficiently, paving the way for Stalin's totalitarian and genocidal dictatorship."
I don’t believe you can compare the USA with our democratic government, our abundant resources, our educational facilities and our modern technology to the small anarcho-communist communities which existed in Russia although some degree of cooperation took place with the centralized communist state.
Jonathan stated:
"Your model, to the degree that it's fleshed out, seems to eliminate the soviets and go straight for an all-powerful centralized Communist State. So far, the only defense against totalitarianism you offer is this weird, unsupported ethnocentrism that would sound like racism if Americans were one race."
Yes, in a democracy, a balance of power is essential to defend against totalitarianism. In my essay, I proposed a web of economic bodies to coordinate what is now our free enterprise system to fulfill our economic needs. In a prior post, I offered how our balance of power could be safely maintained. There may be other more effective ways. However, if the American people decide a balance of power cannot be achieved, a way of life without money would not be considered.
Hogeye:
Yes, there is the human desire for power over others; but that is in today's ugly world. Great leaders seek to guide others; not to control them. One of the advantages of a way of life without money is economic equality. Thus, both poverty and materialism will be eliminated. Our sense of values will change. A person with power will be one who gains the esteem of others through his or her achievements which is the way it ought to be.
IMHO, a 100% free market will not solve our problems as long as materialism is a status symbol in our society. I believe economic equality is a must. Also, since we are a democracy, the people (not the almighty dollar) will control the market through their representatives on the "economic bodies". There will be no lobbyists. Favoritism will not be gained by waving a dollar bill around.
Does a 100% free market consider protecting our environment? Does it consider conserving our resources? Does it prevent poverty? A way of life without money offers these advantages.
In a way of life without money, a "non-cooperative freedom-oriented person" such as yourself would be free to do your "thing". For example, if there is no pizza parlor in your neighborhood and you would take delight in handing out free pizza, you could start up a pizza parlor. Your local "economic body" would help you to get started.
You mentioned the problem of pricing if money is not involved. Of course, this would be a problem; but is it an insurmountable problem? Surely, our economists could come up with some sort of scheme. Perhaps I have more faith in the ingenuity in our economists than you do.
Thanks for your references.
John Steinsvold
"If we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Kevin Carson
2008-06-19 11:38:37
The comments below are from my private email to John:
Again, one sticking point is that such bodies will simply be unable to process the volume of information necessary to determine the economic needs and accurately match supply to demand. I also don't believe the problem of matching *work* to consumption is a mere matter of greed; there's the question of directing effort to the right targets, and the role of price in tying marginal consumption to marginal effort. People may enjoy working, but they may enjoy working in areas where there's already surplus supply, or they may get tired of working before they've produced the value they consume.
*****
IMO the problem is the U.S. doesn't have a democratic government now. Genuine democracy is simply impossible beyond the level of direct, face-to-face deliberation. A large centralized organization of any kind will be under the de facto control of those directly running its machinery, regardless of whom they allegedly "represent." This is not necessarily a matter of mendacity. It's a matter of institutional culture and groupthink.
You mention in Hogeye's comment thread that the boards will be run by experts. I highly recommend Ursula LeGuin's *The Dispossessed*, which describes an anarcho-communist world planned by the kinds of boards you describe. In her world, planning is carried out by the industrial syndicates, and by the global federation of syndicates, all made up of recallable delegates from local workplaces and directly responsible to workers. But these bodies, by the nature of things, have permanent staffs of "experts": economists, engineers, planners, etc. And by the nature of things, they know more about the subject matter they're dealing with than the people they're alledgedly responsible to, and have an advantage in time and attention. So the permanent staffs of experts evolve into mini-Gosplans, and the elected bodies rubber-stamp the plans put before them. Not because the individual experts are power-crazy, but because that's how the Iron Law of Oligarchy works.
John Steinsvold
2008-06-23 18:16:31
Kevin:
As I envision a way of life without money, a web of “economic bodies” will be necessary to determine, monitor, control and coordinate the flow of economic traffic from the federal right on down to the local levels and perhaps even on down to individuals in need of special medical attention such as organ transplants, prosthetics, dialysis machines, special diets etc. Yes, “the volume of information necessary to determine our economic needs and accurately match supply to demand is enormous”; but do we not have the technology to handle it? With scanners, computers, networks, interacting databases? With much of it already in place? With technical knowledge that doubles every ten years?
Yes, the economic bodies will determine and set the economic goals of our nation. These goals will be allocated to corporations, companies, factories, farms, etc. The work force necessary to meet these goals could be a problem since people are free to choose their work according to their abilities and desires. Obviously, there will be shortages of people in some areas and surpluses in others. In today’s way of life, many people are forced to move in order to continue “making a living”. In a way of life without money, an “esprit de corp” will naturally buildup. People will be asked to relocate or to temporarily fill-in as needed; but there will be no pressure. Also, there are times when people need a change. For example, a doctor may need a hiatus from his work. He could help a farmer and drive a tractor to get out in the sun etc.
You mention the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. Luckily, I found it in Wikipedia. Yes, there is a danger of having a staff of economists, engineers, planners, etc. on the “economic bodies” making themselves indispensable with their expertise and thereby becoming “rulers”. Perhaps setting a term limit as we now have for the presidency of the U.S. would be necessary.
John Steinsvold
"But we're not a democracy. It's a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we're a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy."
- Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General interview in The Sun magazine, August 2001