anarcho-capitalism - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7/31/2019 Anarcho-Capitalism - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

1/33

Anarcho-capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Free-market anarchism

rcho-capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia file:///D:/Documents and Settings/primario/Escritorio/Anarcho-capitali...

33 01/01/2011 12:44


2/33

Part of the Politics series on

Anarchism

Agorism Buddhist Capitalist

Christian Collectivist Communist

Crypto Egoist

Feminist Free market Green

Heathian Individualist

Infoanarchism Insurrectionary

Leftist Mutualist NihilistPacifist

Pananarchist Philosophical

Platformist Post-anarchist

Post-colonial Post-left

Primitivist Social Socialist Syndicalist

Vegan Without adjectives Zen

Anarchy Black bloc

Class struggle CommunesConsensus democracy

Decentralization Deep ecology

Direct action Direct democracy

Dual power Especifismo

Horizontalidad Illegalism

Individual reclamation Law

Participatory politics

Permanent Autonomous Zone

Polycentric law

Prefigurative politicsPrivate defense agency

Propaganda of the deed

Refusal of work Rewilding

Social ecology

Spontaneous order

Anarcho-capitalism Animal rights

Capitalism Criticisms Islam

Lifestylism Marxism NationalismOrthodox Judaism Religion

Sex/love

Schools of thought

Theory practice

Issues


33 01/01/2011 12:44


3/33

Violence

1999 WTO Conference protest

1919 United States anarchist bombings

Amakasu Incident

Anarchist Catalonia

Anarchist Exclusion ActAnarchy in Somalia

Australian Anarchist Centenary

Barcelona May Days

Biennio rosso

Carnival Against Capitalism

Escuela Moderna Hague Congress

Haymarket affair

High Treason Incident

Congress of Amsterdam

Kate Sharpley LibraryKronstadt rebellion

Labadie Collection LIP

Manifesto of the Sixteen

May 1968 May Day

Paris Commune

Provo Red inverted triangle

Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine

Spanish Revolution

Third Russian Revolution

Tragic Week Trial of the thirty

Anarcho-punk Arts

Black anarchism Culture jamming

DIY culture Freeganism

Independent Media Center

Infoshop The Internationale

Jewish anarchism Land and liberty

Lifestylism Popular education

Property is theft!Radical cheerleading

Radical environmentalism

Squatting Symbolism

Terminology A las barricadas

Agorism Capitalism Collectivism

Communism Co-operatives

Counter-economics Free market

Free school Free store

Geolibertarianism Gift economy

Market abolitionism Mutual aid

History

Culture

Economics


33 01/01/2011 12:44


4/33

Mutualism Participatory economics

Planned Economy

Really Really Free Market

Self-ownership Syndicalism

Wage slavery

Workers' self-management

Africa Austria-Hungary Brazil

Canada China Cuba England

France Greece India Ireland

Israel Italy Japan Korea

Mexico Poland Russia Spain

Sweden Turkey Ukraine

United States Vietnam

Anarcho-punk bands BooksCommunities Fictional characters

Jewish anarchists Musicians

Organizations Periodicals Poets

Russian anarchists

Anti-capitalism Anti-consumerism

Anti-corporatism

Anti-fascism Anti-globalization

Antimilitarism

Anti-statism Anti-war Autarchism

Autonomism Labour movement

Left communism Libertarianism

Libertarian perspectives on revolution

Libertarian socialism

Situationist International

Anarchism Portal

Politics portal

Part of the series on

Capitalism

Central bankCommercial law

Companies lawComparative advantageCompetition law

Consumer protectionCopyright

By region

Lists

Related topics

Concepts


33 01/01/2011 12:44


5/33

CorporationsDeregulation

Economic freedomEconomic liberalismFinancial regulation

Fiscal policyFree price system

Free trade agreementsFreedom of contract

GlobalizationInflation

Intellectual propertyInvisible hand

Labour lawLimited government

MarketMonetary policy

MonopolyOligopolyPatents

Private propertyPrivatization

Regulated market

RecessionSpontaneous order

StagflationSupply and demand

Wage labour

Austrian schoolChicago school

Classical economicsKeynesian economics

New Keynesian economicsMonetarismNeoclassical economicsSupply-side economicsInstitutional economics

New institutional economics

Age of EnlightenmentFeudalism

Industrial RevolutionPhysiocrats

Mercantilism

Adam SmithDavid Ricardo

John Stuart MillKarl Marx

Alfred MarshallThorstein Veblen

Max WeberLudwig von Mises

Joseph SchumpeterJohn Maynard Keynes

Friedrich HayekRonald Coase

Economic theories

Origins

People


33 01/01/2011 12:44


6/33

Milton FriedmanAyn Rand

Anarcho-capitalism

Consumer capitalismCorporate capitalism

Creative capitalismCrony capitalismDemocratic capitalism

Eco-capitalismFinance capitalismGlobal capitalism

Humanistic capitalismInclusive capitalism

Late capitalismLaissez-faire capitalism

Liberal capitalismMerchant capitalism

Mixed economyMonopoly capitalism

Neo-CapitalismPhilanthrocapitalism

TechnocapitalismRegulatory capitalism

Rentier capitalismSocial capitalism

Social market economyState capitalism

State monopoly capitalismWelfare capitalism

Anti-capitalismAdvanced capitalism

Capitalist mode of productionCriticism

ConsumerismCorporate nationalism

CorporatismCulture of capitalism

HistoryHistory of theory

Market fundamentalismPeriodizations of capitalism

Post-capitalismRate of exploitation

Trickle-down economics

LiberalismLibertarianism

NeoconservatismNeoliberalism

ObjectivismObjectivist movement

Ordoliberalism

Social democracy

Philosophy Portal

Variants

Related topics

Movements


33 01/01/2011 12:44


7/33

Economics Portal

Politics Portal

Part of the Politics series on

Libertarianism

Classical Liberalism

Individualist Anarchism

Left Communism

Counter-economics

Dispute resolution organization

Economic freedom

Egalitarianism

Free marketFree society Free trade

Free will Freedom of association

Freedom of contract

Homestead principle

Individualism

Laissez-faire

Liberty Limited government

Methodological individualism

Natural rights

Night watchman stateNon-aggression

Non-interventionism

Non-politics Non-voting

Participatory economics

Polycentric law Property

Private defense agency

Self-governance Self-ownership

Spontaneous order

Stateless society

Subjective theory of value Tax resistanceTitle-transfer theory of contract

Worker's self management

Voluntary association

Voluntary society

Agorism Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-communism Autarchism

Christian Consequentalist

Conservative ConstitutionalistCrypto-anarchism Deontological

Free market Geolibertarianism

Origins and history

Theory and ideals

Schools


33 01/01/2011 12:44


8/33

Green Left-wing Marxist

Minarchist Mutualist

Paleolibertarianism Panarchist

Propertarianism Right-wing

Socialist Voluntaryism

Anarcho-capitalism and minarchismControversies Criticisms

Intellectual property

Libertarian movement

LGBT rights

Political parties

Theories of law

Anti-state Anti-war

Anarcho-syndicalism

Civil libertarianism

Civil societarianism

Constitutionalism

Fusionism

Individualist anarchism

Libertarian Democrat

Libertarian Republican

Libertarian transhumanism

Market liberalism

Objectivism

Small government

Small-l libertarianism

Libertarianism portal

Philosophy portal

Politics portal

Individualism

Autonomy

Capitalism

Civil liberties

Classical liberalism

Democracy

Democratic capitalism

Do it yourself

Ethical egoism

IndividualismIndividual rights

Individualist anarchism

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] politicalphilosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and theelevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In ananarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all othersecurity services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitorssuch as private defense agencies rather than through compulsorytaxation, and money is privately produced in an open market.

Because personal and economic activities are regulated by thenatural laws of the market through private law rather than throughpolitics, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state arerendered moot.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade ofprivate property (including money, consumer goods, land, andcapital goods) and services in order to maximize individual libertyand prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal

arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.[2] Thoughanarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private(individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose thatnon-state public/community property can also exist in an anarcho-

capitalist society.[3] For them, what is important is that it isacquired and transferred without help or hindrance from thecompulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that theonly just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire

property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original

appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.[4]

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for afree and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that thedifference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" isthe difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and acollusive partnership between business and government that uses

coercion to subvert the free market.[5] "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with statemonopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, orcontemporary mixed economies, wherein natural market

incentives and disincentives are skewed by state intervention.[6]

So they reject the state, based on the belief that states areaggressive entities which steal property (through taxation andexpropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly onthe use of defensive and/or punitive force, use their coercive

powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expenseof others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personalfreedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, lawson food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfetteredcapitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists who tend to distrust themarket, and believe that free-market capitalism is inherently

authoritarian.

Topics

Related topics

Topics


33 01/01/2011 12:44


9/33

Laissez-faire

Liberalism

Individual reclamationLibertarianism

Liberty

Methodological individualism

Negative liberty

ObjectivismPrivate property

Self-ownership

Self-interest

Aristotle

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Friedrich von Hayek

Thomas Jefferson

Immanuel KantLaozi

Franois de La Rochefoucauld

Anton LaVey

Michel de Montaigne

John Locke

John Stuart Mill

Friedrich Nietzsche

Emile Armand

Ayn Rand

Adam SmithHerbert Spencer

Lysander Spooner

Max Stirner

Georges Palante

Henry David Thoreau

Renzo Novatore

Han Ryner

Ludwig von Mises

Zeno

Collectivism

Statism

Social engineering

Contents

1 Philosophy1.1 Varieties of anarcho-capitalism1.2 Nonaggression axiom

1.3 Property1.3.1 Private property

1.3.1.1 Intellectual property

1.3.2 Common property

1.4 Contractual society1.5 Law and order and the use of violence

2 History and influences2.1 Classical liberalism2.2 Nineteenth century individualist anarchism in

the United States2.3 Austrian School

3 Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism3.1 Medieval Iceland3.2 American Old West3.3 Early Pennsylvania

4 Theoretical and material variance among anarcho-capitalists5 Anarcho-capitalism today6 Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

6.1 Another state would replace the first6.2 Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools6.3 Stability of anarcho-capitalist legal institutions

7 Anarcho-capitalist literature7.1 Nonfiction7.2 Fiction

8 See also9 Citations10 References

10.1 Sources that consider anarcho-capitalism a

form of anarchism10.1.1 As a form of individualist anarchism10.1.2 As a form of anarchism in general

10.2 Sources that do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism

11 Further reading12 External links

Philosophy

Varieties of anarcho-capitalism

Thinkers

Concerns


33 01/01/2011 12:44


10/33

The term anarcho-capitalismwas most likely coined in 1968

by Jarrett Wollstein and revivedby economist Murray

Rothbard.[13][14] Rothbardused the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his

philosophy from anarchism that

opposes private property,[15] aswell as to distinguish it fromother forms of individualist

anarchism.[16] Other termssometimes used for this

philosophy, though notnecessarily outside anarcho-capitalist circles, include:

anti-state capitalismanti-state marketism

anarcho-liberalism[17]

capitalist anarchism

Various theorists have differing, though similar, legal philosophies which are considered to fall under"anarcho-capitalism." The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism was formulated by AustrianSchool economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-twentieth century, synthesizing elements fromthe Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism, and nineteenth century American individualistanarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (rejecting their labor theory of value and the normative

implications they derived from it).[7] In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be theimplementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and

which the courts would pledge themselves to follow."[8] This legal code would recognize sovereignty of theindividual and the principle of non-aggression. However, in David D. Friedman's anarcho-capitalism, "the

systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market",[9] which he believes would lead to agenerally libertarian society if not an absolute one.

Rothbard bases his philosophy on absolutist natural law grounds but also gives economic explanations ofwhy he thinks anarcho-capitalism is preferable on pragmatic grounds. Friedman says he is not an absolutistrights theorist but is also "not a utilitarian", however, he does believe that "utilitarian arguments are usually

the best way to defend libertarian views".[10] Peter Leeson argues that "the case for anarchy derives its

strength from empirical evidence, not theory."[11] Hans-Hermann Hoppe, meanwhile, uses "argumentation

ethics" for his foundation of "private property anarchism",[12] which is closer to Rothbard's natural lawapproach.

Nonaggression axiom

Main articles: self-ownership and non-aggression axiom

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression againstthe person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very beingin such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coerciveexclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredationsand coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -MurrayRothbard in Society and State

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

[...] The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is aself owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, thismeans that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's

person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previouslyunowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From thesetwin axioms self-ownership and "homesteading" stem the justification forthe entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. Thissystem establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right ofdonation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or

inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.[20]

Rothbard's defense of the self-ownership principle stems from what hebelieved to be his falsification of all other alternatives, namely that either agroup of people can own another group of people, or the other alternative,that no single person has full ownership over one's self. Rothbard dismisses


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


11/33

market anarchismfree market anarchismindividualist

anarchism[18]

natural order[19]

ordered anarchy[19]

polycentric lawthe private-law

society

[19]

private-property

anarchy[19]

pure capitalism

radical capitalism[19]

stateless capitalismstateless societystateless liberalismvoluntaryism

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.[21]

In general, the nonaggression axiom can be said to be a prohibition againstthe initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons (i.e., direct

violence, assault, murder) or property (i.e., fraud, burglary, theft,taxation).[22] The initiation of force is usually referred to as aggression orcoercion. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertariansis largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom. Minarchistlibertarians, such as most people involved in libertarian political parties,would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive form, retaining at thevery least public police, courts and military; others, however, might givefurther allowance for other government programs. In contrast, anarcho-

capitalists reject any level of state intervention, defining the state as a coercive monopoly and, as the onlyentity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression, an entity that inherently violates the

central axiom of libertarianism.

[21]

Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Rothbard, accept the nonaggression axiom on an intrinsic moral or naturallaw basis. It is in terms of the non-aggression principle that Rothbard defined anarchism; he defined"anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and property']"and said that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized

institution of aggressive coercion."[23] In an interview withNew Banner, Rothbard said that "capitalism is

the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." [24]

Property

Private property

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

Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goodsthat he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has alreadyoccupied 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 wayhe sees fit, provided only that he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places andgoods 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 andgoods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary contractual transfer of its property title from aprevious to a later owner.[25]


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


12/33

Anarcho-capitalism uses the followingterms in ways that may differ fromcommon usage or various anarchistmovements.

Anarchism: any philosophy thatopposes all forms of initiatorycoercion (includes opposition tothe State)Contract: a voluntary bindingagreement between personsCoercion: physical force or threatof such against persons or

propertyCapitalism: economic systemwhere the means of productionare privately owned, and whereinvestments, production,distribution, income, and pricesare determined through the

operation of a free market ratherthan by governmentFree market: a market where alldecisions regarding transfer ofmoney, goods (including capitalgoods), and services arevoluntaryFraud: inducing one to part withsomething of value through the useof dishonestyState: an organization that taxesand engages in regularized andinstitutionalized aggressive

coercionVoluntary: any action notinfluenced by coercion or fraud

perpetrated by any human agency

Anarcho-capitalists support unrestrictedprivate ownership of the means of

production and the liberty to operate themfor profit, without coercive interference by

the state and non-state collectives.

This is the root ofanarcho-capitalist

property rights, andwhere they differ fromcollectivist forms ofanarchism such asanarcho-communism

where the means ofproduction arecontrolled by the wholecommunity and the

product of labor iscollectivized in a pool ofgoods and distributed"according to need."Anarcho-capitalistsadvocate individual or

joint (i.e.private)ownership of the means of production and the product of laborregardless of what the individual "needs" or does not need. AsRothbard says, "if every man has the right to own his own body andif he must use and transform material natural objects in order tosurvive, then he has the right to own the product that he has made."After property is created through labor it may then only exchangehands legitimately by trade or gift; forced transfers are consideredillegitimate. Original appropriation allows an individual to claim anynever-before used resources, including land, and by improving orotherwise using it, own it with the same "absolute right" as his own

body. According to Rothbard, property can only come about throughlabor, therefore original appropriation of land is not legitimate bymerely claiming it or building a fence around it; it is only by usingland by mixing one's labor with it that original appropriation islegitimized: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someonedoes not use would have to be considered invasive of the propertyright of whoever the first user will turn out to be." Rothbard notesthat the resource need not continue to be used in order for it to bethe person's property, "for once his labor is mixed with the naturalresource, it remains his owned land. His labor has been irretrievably

mixed with the land, and the land is therefore his or his assigns inperpetuity."[26] As a practical matter, in terms of the ownership ofland, anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few (if any) parcelsof land left on Earth whose ownership was not at some point in timeobtained in violation of the homestead principle, through seizure bythe state or put in private hands with the assistance of the state.Rothbard says,

It is not enough to call simply for defense of "the rights of privateproperty"; there must be an adequate theory of justice in propertyrights, else any property that some State once decreed to be

"private" must now be defended by libertarians, no matter howunjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences. [16]

Rothbard says in "Justice and Property Right" that "any identifiable


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


13/33

owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded hisproperty." In the case of slavery, Rothbard says that in many cases "the old plantations and the heirs anddescendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed."He believes slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work on under the "homestead principle." If

property is held by the state, Rothbard advocates its confiscation and return to the private sector: "anyproperty in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible."For example, he proposes that State universities be seized by the students and faculty under the homestead

principle. Rothbard also supports expropriation of nominally "private property" if it is the result of state-initiated force, such as businesses who receive grants and subsidies. He proposes that businesses who receiveat least 50% of their funding from the state be confiscated by the workers. He says, "What we libertariansobject 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." Likewise,Karl Hess says, "libertarianism wants to advanceprinciples of property but that it in no way wishes todefend, 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."[27] By accepting anaxiomatic definition of private property and property rights, anarcho-capitalists deny the legitimacy of astate on principle:

"For, apart from ruling out as unjustified all activities such as murder, homicide, rape, trespass,robbery, burglary, theft, and fraud, the ethics of private property is also incompatible with theexistence of a state defined as an agency that possesses a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate

decision-making (jurisdiction) and/or the right to tax."[25]

Intellectual property

The positions on intellectual property vary according to the anarcho-capitalist theorist. Libertarian views

range from support for all, to opposition to all intellectual property rights.[28] Rothbard argues that patentsare coercive monopolistic privileges granted by the state, and says they would not exist in a free society,

because they prohibit individuals from independently coming up with the same invention. On the other hand,he holds that copyrights are in some situations compatible with a free society. His argument is that when acopyright notice is on a piece of literary work this is a signal that the creator of the work does not consent to

anyone to using it unless they agree to not to copy it, hence if it is used this constitutes a contract.[29]

Anarcho-capitalist Stephan Kinsella[30] opposes both patent and copyright intellectual property.[28]

Common property

Though anarcho-capitalists assert a right to private property, some anarcho-capitalists also point out that

common, i.e. community, property can exist by right in an anarcho-capitalist system. Just as an individualcomes to own that which was unowned by mixing his labor with it or using it regularly, a whole communityor society can come to own a thing in common by mixing their labor with it collectively, meaning that no

individual may appropriate it as his own. This may apply to roads, parks, rivers, and portions of oceans.[3]

Anarcho-capitalist theorist Roderick Long gives the following example:

"Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. Inthe early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen

branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms not through anycoordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. Thecleared path is the product of labor not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one

villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, hewould be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned."[31]

Nevertheless, since property that is owned collectively tends to lose the level of accountability found in


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


14/33

A postage stamp celebrating thethousandth anniversary of the

Icelandic parliament. According toa theory associated with theeconomist David Friedman,

medieval Icelandic society hadsome features of anarcho-

capitalism. Chieftaincies could bebought and sold, and were not

geographical monopolies;individuals could voluntarily

choose membership in anychieftain's clan.

individual ownership to the extent of the number of owners or make such accountability proportionatelymore complex, anarcho-capitalists generally distrust and seek to avoid intentional communal arrangements.Privatization, decentralization, and individualization are often anarcho-capitalist goals. But in some cases,they not only provide a challenge, but are considered next to impossible. Established ocean routes, forexample, are generally seen as unavailable for private appropriation.

Anarcho-capitalists tend to concur with free-market environmentalists regarding the environmentallydestructive tendencies of the state and other communal arrangements. Air, water, and land pollution, forexample, are seen as the result of collectivization of ownership. Central governments generally strike downindividual or class action censure of polluters in order to benefit "the many", and legal or economic subsidyof heavy industry is justified by many politicians for job creation within a political territory.

Contractual society

The society envisioned by anarcho-capitalists has been called theContractual Society "... a society based purely on voluntary action,

entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence."[26] in whichanarcho-capitalists claim the system relies on voluntary agreements(contracts) between individuals as the legal framework. It is difficult to

predict precisely what the particulars of this society will look likebecause of the details and complexities of contracts.

One particular ramification is that transfer of property and services mustbe considered voluntary on the part ofboth parties. No external entitiescan force an individual to accept or deny a particular transaction. Anemployer might offer insurance and death benefits to same-sex couples;another might refuse to recognize any union outside his or her own faith.Individuals are free to enter into or reject contractual agreements as they

see fit.

Rothbard points out that corporations would exist in a free society, asthey are simply the pooling of capital. He says limited liability forcorporations could also exist through contract: "Corporations are not atall monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals

pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simplyannounce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation

...."[26]

Corporations created in this way would not, however, be able to replicate the limit on liabilities arisingnon-contractually, such as liability in tort for environmental disasters or personal injury, which corporationscurrently enjoy. Rothbard himself acknowledges that "limited liability for torts is the illegitimate conferring

of a special privilege"[32]

There are limits to the right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard himself

asserts that the right to contract is based in inalienable human rights[21] and therefore any contract thatimplicitly violates those rights can be voided at will, which would, for instance, prevent a person from

permanently selling himself or herself into unindentured slavery. Other interpretations conclude that banning

such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.[33]

Included in the right of contract is the right to contract oneself out for employment by others. Unlikeanarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contractto be employees of others, whichever they prefer and the freedom to pay and receive wages. Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail over wage labor. For example, David Friedman has


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


15/33

expressed preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed" and "instead of corporationsthere are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his

time produces."[34] Others, such as Rothbard, do not express a preference either way but justify employmentas a natural occurrence in a free market that is not immoral in any way.

Law and order and the use of violence

Different anarcho-capitalists propose different forms of anarcho-capitalism, and one area of disagreement isin the area of law. Morris and Linda Tannehill, in The Market for Liberty, object to any statutory lawwhatsoever. They assert that all one has to do is ask if one is aggressing against another (see tort and

contract law) in order to decide if an act is right or wrong.[35] However, Murray Rothbard, while alsosupporting a natural prohibition on force and fraud, supports the establishment of a mutually agreed-uponcentralized libertarian legal code which private courts would pledge to follow. Such a code for Internetcommerce, called The Common Economic Protocols (https://ravenescrow.com/CEP/) was developed byAndre Goldman.

Unlike both the Tannehills and Rothbard who see an ideological commonality of ethics and morality as a

requirement, David Friedman proposes that "the systems of law will be produced for profit on the openmarket, 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."[9] Friedman says whether this would leadto a libertarian society "remains to be proven." He says it is a possibility that very unlibertarian laws mayresult, such as laws against drugs. But, he thinks this would be rare. He reasons that "if the value of a law toits supporters is less than its cost to its victims, that law...will not survive in an anarcho-capitalist

society."[36]

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. But, their complaint is notust 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, it forcibly prevents the private sector from providingcomprehensive 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, butnot private individuals, a right to use physical force to restrain aggressors. Also, if competition in security

provision were allowed to exist, prices would 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."[37] Proponents point out that private systemsof justice and defense already exist, naturally forming where the market is allowed to compensate for the

failure of the state: private arbitration, security guards, neighborhood watch groups, and so on.[38] Theseprivate 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 relyingon voluntary donation rather than by state institutions relying on coercive taxation, or by cooperative

self-help by groups of individuals.[39]


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


16/33

Murray Rothbard admired theAmerican Revolution andbelieved it is the only U.S. war

that can be justified.

Gustave de Molinari(18191912).

Like classical liberalism, and unlike anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-capitalismpermits the use of force, as long as it is in the defense of persons orproperty. The permissible extent of this defensive use of force is anarguable point among anarcho-capitalists. Retributive justice, meaningretaliatory force, is often a component of the contracts imagined for ananarcho-capitalist society. Some believe prisons or indentured servitudewould be justifiable institutions to deal with those who violate anarcho-

capitalist property relations, while others believe exile or forced restitutionare sufficient.[40]

Bruce L. Benson notes that, in the interest of deterring crime, legal codesmay impose punitive damages for intentional torts. For instance, a thiefwho breaks into a house by picking a lock and is caught before taking anything would still owe the victim forviolating the sanctity of his property rights. Benson opins that, despite the lack of objectively measurablelosses in such cases, "standardized rules that are generally perceived to be fair by members of thecommunity would, in all likelihood, be established through precedent, allowing judgments to specify

payments that are reasonably appropriate for most criminal offenses."[41] The Tannehills raise a similarexample, noting that a bank robber who had an attack of conscience and returned the money would still owereparations for endangering the employees' and customers' lives and safety, in addition to the costs of thedefense agency answering the teller's call for help. But the robber's loss of reputation would be even moredamaging. Specialized companies would list aggressors so that anyone wishing to do business with a mancould first check his record. 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.[42]

One difficult application of defensive aggression is the act of revolutionary violence (including anarcho-capitalist revolution) against tyrannical regimes. Many anarcho-capitalists admire the American Revolutionas the legitimate act of individuals working together to fight against tyrannical restrictions of their liberties.In fact, according to Murray Rothbard, the American Revolutionary War was the only war involving the

United States that could be justified.[43] Some anarcho-capitalists, i.e. Samuel Edward Konkin III feel thatviolent revolution is counter-productive and prefer voluntary forms of economic secession to the extent

possible.

History and influences

Classical liberalism

Main article: Classical liberalism

Classical liberalism is the primary influence with the longest history onanarcho-capitalist theory. Classical liberals have had two main themes sinceJohn Locke first expounded the philosophy: the liberty of man, andlimitations of state power. The liberty of man was expressed in terms ofnatural rights, while limiting the state was based (for Locke) on a consenttheory.

In the 19th century, classical liberals led the attack against statism. Onenotable was Frederic Bastiat (The Law), who wrote, "The state is the greatfiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else."

Henry David Thoreau wrote, "I heartily accept the motto, 'That governmentis best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to morerapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, whichalso I believe, 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


17/33

men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."[44]

The early liberals believed that the state should confine its role to protecting individual liberty and property,and opposed all but the most minimal economic regulations. The "normative core" of classical liberalism isthe idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and

services emerges that satisfies human wants.[45] Some individualists came to realize that the liberal stateitself takes property forcefully through taxation in order to fund its protection services, and therefore it

seemed logically inconsistent to oppose theft while also supporting a tax-funded protector. So, theyadvocated what may be seen as classical liberalism taken to the extreme by only supporting voluntarilyfunded defense by competing private providers. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of

privatizing protection of individual liberty and property was France's Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century.Later, in the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same. Molinari, in his essay The

Production of Security, argued, "No government should have the right to prevent another government fromgoing into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for thiscommodity." Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals andclassical economics. Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico asserts that what these liberal philosophers "hadcome up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or

market anarchism."

[46]

Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, theanti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people society andthe institutions of force the State. Thissociety versus state idea was expressed in various ways: naturalsociety vs. artificial society, liberty vs. authority, society of contract vs. society of authority, and industrial

society vs. militant society, just to name a few.[37] The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the UnitedStates continued after Molinari in the early writings of Herbert Spencer, as well as in thinkers such as Paulmile de Puydt and Auberon Herbert.

Ulrike Heider, in discussing the "anarcho-capitalists family tree," notes Max Stirner as the "founder of

individualist anarchism" and "ancestor of laissez-faire liberalism."[47] According to Heider, Stirner wants to"abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members" and "derives hisidentity solely from property" with the question of property to be resolved by a 'war of all against all'."Stirner argued against the existence of the state in a fundamentally anti-collectivist way, to be replaced by a"Union of Egoists" but was not more explicit than that in his bookThe Ego and Its Own published in 1844.

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

organizations such as the (U.S.) Libertarian Party.

Nineteenth century individualist anarchism in the United States


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


18/33

Lysander Spooner (180887).

For more details on this topic, see Anarchism in the United States.

Rothbard was influenced by the work of the 19th-century American

individualist anarchists[48] (who were also influenced by classicalliberalism). In the winter of 1949, influenced by several nineteenth-centuryindividualists anarchists, Rothbard decided to reject minimal state

laissez-faire and embrace individualist anarchism.[49] Rothbard said in

1965[50] "Lysander Spooner and Benjamin T. Tucker were unsurpassed aspolitical philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival anddevelopment of the largely forgotten legacy they left to political

philosophy." However, he thought they had a faulty understanding ofeconomics. The 19th century individualists had a labor theory of value, asinfluenced by the classical economists, but Rothbard was a student ofneoclassical economics which does not agree with the labor theory ofvalue. So, Rothbard sought to meld 19th century individualists' advocacy offree markets and private defense with the principles of Austrian economics:"There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a

scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of governmentintervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and

social Weltanschauung".[50] Rothbard held that the economic consequences of the political system theyadvocate 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 issuancewould cause increases in the money supply so that interest rates would drop to zero or near to it. Rothbarddisagreed with this, as he explains in The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View. He says that firstof all Tucker was wrong to think that that would cause the money supply to increase, because he says thatthe money supply in a free market would be self-regulating. If it were not, then inflation would occur, so it isnot necessarily desirable to increase the money supply in the first place. Secondly, he says that Tucker iswrong to think that interest would disappear regardless, because people in general do not wish to lend theirmoney to others without compensation so there is no reason why this would change just because bankingwas unregulated. Also, Tucker held a labor theory of value. As a result, he thought that in a free market that

people would be paid in proportion to how much labor they exerted and that if they were not thenexploitation or "usury" was taking place. As he explains in State Socialism and Anarchism, his theory wasthat unregulated banking would cause more money to be available and that this would allow proliferation ofnew businesses, which would in turn raise demand for labor. This led him to believe that the labor theory ofvalue would be vindicated, and equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay. Again, as a neoclassicaleconomist, Rothbard did not agree with the labor theory. He believed that prices of goods and services are

proportional to marginal utility rather than to labor amounts in free market. And he did not think that therewas anything exploitative about people receiving an income according to how much others subjectively

value their labor or what that labor produces, even if it means people laboring the same amount receivedifferent incomes.

Benjamin Tucker opposed vast concentrations of wealth, which he believed were made possible bygovernment intervention and state protected monopolies. He believed the most dangerous state interventionwas the requirement that individuals obtain charters in order to operate banks and what he believed to be theillegality of issuing private money, which he believed caused capital to concentrate in the hands of a

privileged few which he called the "banking monopoly." He believed anyone should be able to engage inbanking that wished, without requiring state permission, and issue private money. Though he was supporterof laissez-faire, late in life he said that State intervention had allowed some extreme concentrations of

resources to such a degree that even if laissez-faire were instituted, it would be too late for competition to beable to release those resources (he gave Standard Oil as an example).[51] Anarcho-capitalists also opposegovernmental restrictions on banking. They, like all Austrian economists, believe that monopoly can onlycome about through government intervention. Individualists anarchists have long argued that monopoly on


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


19/33

Murray Rothbard (192695).

credit and land interferes with the functioning of a free market economy. Although anarcho-capitalistsdisagree on the critical topics of profit, social egalitarianism, and the proper scope of private property, bothschools of thought agree on other issues. Of particular importance to anarcho-capitalists and theindividualists are the ideas of "sovereignty of the individual", a market economy, and the opposition tocollectivism. A defining point that they agree on is that defense of liberty and property should be provided inthe free market rather than by the State. Tucker said, "[D]efense is a service like any other service; that it islabor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and

demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competitionprevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that theproduction and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all

monopolists, charges exorbitant prices."[52] But, again, since anarcho-capitalists disagree with Tucker's labortheory of value, they disagree that free market competition would cause protection (or anything else) to be

provided "at cost." Like the individualists, anarcho-capitalists believe that land may be originallyappropriated by, and only by, occupation or use; however, most individualists of the nineteenth-century

believed it must continually be in use to retain title. Lysander Spooner was an exception from those whobelieved in the "occupation and use" theory, and believed in full private property rights in land, like

Rothbard.[53]

Austrian School

Main article: Austrian School

The Austrian School of economics was founded with the publication of CarlMenger's 1871 bookPrinciples of Economics. Members of this schoolapproach economics as an a priori system like logic or mathematics, ratherthan as an empirical science like geology. It attempts to discover axioms ofhuman action (called "praxeology" in the Austrian tradition) and makedeductions therefrom. Some of these praxeological axioms are:

humans act purposefully;humans prefer more of a good to less;humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later; andeach party to a trade benefits ex ante.

Even in the early days, Austrian economics was used as a theoreticalweapon against socialism and statist socialist policy. Eugen vonBhm-Bawerk, a colleague of Menger, wrote one of the first critiques of

socialism ever written in his treatise The Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism. Later, FriedrichHayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, asserting that a command economy destroys the information function of

prices, and that authority over the economy leads to totalitarianism. Another very influential Austrianeconomist was Ludwig von Mises, author of the praxeological workHuman Action.

Murray Rothbard, a student of Mises, is the man who attempted to meld Austrian economics with classicalliberalism and individualist anarchism, and is credited with coining the term "anarcho-capitalism". He wrotehis first paper advocating "private property anarchism" in 1949, and later came up with the alternative name"anarcho-capitalism." He was probably the first to use "libertarian" in its current (U.S.) pro-capitalist sense.He was a trained economist, but also knowledgeable in history and political philosophy. When young, heconsidered himself part of the Old Right, an anti-statist and anti-interventionist branch of the U.S.Republican party. When interventionist cold warriors of theNational Review, such as William Buckley,

gained influence in the Republican party in the 1950s, Rothbard quit that group and formed an alliance withleft-wing antiwar groups, noting an antiwar tradition among a number of self-styled left-wingers and to adegree closer to the Old Right conservatives. He believed that the cold warriors were more indebted in

theory to the left and imperialist progressives, especially in regards to Trotskyist theory.[54] Later, Rothbard


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


20/33

19th century interpretation ofthe Althing in the Icelandic

Commonwealth, which authorssuch as David Friedman and

Roderick Long believe to havesome features of anarcho-

capitalist society.

initially opposed the founding of the U.S. Libertarian Party but joined the LP in 1973 and became one of itsleading activists. In the late 1950s, Rothbard was briefly involved with Ayn Rand, but later had a falling out.Rothbard's books, such asMan, Economy, and State,Power and Market, The Ethics of Liberty, andFor a

ew Liberty, are considered by some to be classics of natural law libertarian thought.

Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism

See also: List of anarchist communities

To the extent that anarcho-capitalism is thought of as a theory or ideologyrather than a social processcritics say that it is unlikely ever to be morethan a utopian ideal. Some, however, point to actual situations where

protection of individual liberty and property has been voluntarily fundedrather than being provided by a state through taxation.

Medieval Iceland

According to David Friedman, "Medieval Icelandic institutions haveseveral peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost havebeen invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market

systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions."[55]

While not directly labeling it anarcho-capitalist, he argues that the IcelandicCommonwealth between 930 and 1262 had "some features" of an anarcho-capitalist society while there was a single legal system, enforcement oflaw was entirely private and highly capitalist; and so provides someevidence of how such a society would function. "Even where the Icelandiclegal 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."[55]

American Old West

According to the research of Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill, the Old West in the United States in theperiod of 1830 to 1900 was similar to anarcho-capitalism in that "private agencies provided the necessarybasis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved," and that thecommon popular perception that the Old West was chaotic with little respect for property rights is

incorrect.[56]

Since squatters had no claim to western lands under federal law, extra-legal organizationsformed to fill the void. Benson explains:[57]

The land clubs and claim associations each adopted their own written contract setting out the laws thatprovided the means for defining and protecting property rights in the land. They established proceduresfor registration of land claims, as well as for protection of those claims against outsiders, and foradjudication of internal disputes that arose. The reciprocal arrangements for protection would bemaintained only if a member complied with the association's rules and its court's rulings. Anyone whorefused would be ostracized. Boycott by a land club meant that an individual had no protection againstaggression other than what he could provide himself.

Early Pennsylvania

Murray Rothbard's history of Colonial America Conceived in Liberty discussed a period where Pennsylvaniafell into a state of anarchism and how William Penn struggled for about a decade to reinstate his government


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


21/33

Roderick Long, founder of theMolinari Institute, is one of manycontemporary anarcho-capitalists.

over a people who didn't want it.[58]

Theoretical and material variance among anarcho-capitalists

See also: Deontological libertarianism and Consequentialist libertarianism

A notable dispute within the anarcho-capitalist movement concerns the question of whether anarcho-

capitalist society is justified on deontological or consequentialist ethics, or both. Natural-law anarcho-capitalism (as advocated by Rothbard) holds that a universal system of rights can be derived from naturallaw. Some other anarcho-capitalists do not rely upon the idea of natural rights, but instead present economicustifications for a free-market capitalist society. This latter approach, which has been called the Chicago

School version[59] has been offered by David D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom. Also unlike otheranarcho-capitalists, most notably Rothbard, Friedman has never tried to deny the theoretical cogency of theneoclassical literature on "market failure," nor has he been inclined to attack economic efficiency as a

normative benchmark.[38]

In addition to differences over justifications, there are differences in regard to the systems proposed. In

Friedman's version, private defense or protection agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supplythe actual content of these rights and all claims on the market. People will have the law system they pay for,and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from individuals' utility functions, such law willtend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to agency depending onthe tastes of the people who buy the law.

Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists lean toward libertarian political deactivism in which political means are usedto speed the obsolescence of the state. Friedmanites, on the other hand, prefer to rely more heavily onmarket processes in the evolution of polycentric law by centering on tort and contract law, and by exposingthe inefficiencies and inconsistencies of criminal law, or crimes against the state.

Anarcho-capitalism today

Besides the well-known David D. Friedman, many others carry onand evolve the anarcho-capitalist traditions. They include:

Randy Barnett lawyer, law professor at Georgetown UniversityLaw Center and legal theorist.Bruce L. Benson DeVoe L. Moore Professor andDistinguished Research Professor at Florida State Universityand Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute.Ian Bernard (now known as Ian Freeman) host of Free TalkLive.Walter Block Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair in Economics atLoyola University New Orleans, Senior Faculty member andspeaker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a prolific writer.Gene Callahan economist, writer, and adjunct scholar with theLudwig von Mises Institute.Bryan Caplan blogger, professor of economics at GeorgeMason University and an Adjunct Scholar of the Cato Institute.Thomas DiLorenzo author, historian, professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and

senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Doug French president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, author, frequent writer for Mises.org(http://mises.org/) and LewRockwell.com (http://lewrockwell.com/) .Patri Friedman Executive Director of the Seasteading Institute.Hans-Hermann Hoppe former economics professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, president


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


22/33

and founder of The Property and Freedom Society (http://www.propertyandfreedom.org/) .Scott Horton host of Antiwar Radio (http://antiwar.com/radio) .Penn Jillette illusionist of the team Penn & Teller.Stephan Kinsella intellectual property lawyer and libertarian legal theorist.Peter Leeson BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University and author ofthe new book The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates, http://www.peterleeson.comRoderick Long professor of philosophy at Auburn University, blogger and founder of the MolinariInstitute (http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm) .Carlo Lottieri director of the Political Theory department of the Bruno Leoni Institute, a libertarianthink-tank based in Turin and Adjunct Faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Wendy McElroy author, columnist and individualist feminist.Stefan Molyneux blogger, essayist, author, and host of Freedomain Radio(http://freedomainradio.com/) .Robert P. Murphy Austrian School economist and free market-oriented best-selling author, seniorfellow in business and economic studies at the Pacific Research Institute, adjunct scholar and frequentspeaker at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.Jan Narveson professor of philosophy emeritus at the University of Waterloo, Officer of the Order ofCanada and president of the Institute for Liberal Studies.

Justin Raimondo author and editorial director of Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com/) .Lew Rockwell past-president and founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and lewrockwell.com.Mary Ruwart a libertarian speaker, writer, activist and was a leading candidate for the 2008Libertarian Party presidential nomination. She is the author of the bestselling 1992 book Healing OurWorld: The Other Piece of the Puzzle.Joseph Salerno professor of economics at Pace University. He is also the chair of the economicsgraduate program. He is also a senior faculty member of the Mises Institute.Jeremy Sapienza assistant webmaster and senior editor of Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com/) .George H. Smith libertarian author and educator.Joseph Sobran journalist and writer, formerly with National Review and currently a syndicatedcolumnist, spent 21 years as a commentator on the CBS Radio "Spectrum" program series, and is still

a syndicated columnist, first with the Los Angeles Times, and later with the Universal Press Syndicate.Marc Stevens (radio host) voluntaryist essayist, talk radio host, author and lawyer,http://marcstevens.netMark Thornton economist of the Austrian School, taught economics at Auburn University. Thorntonhas been described by the Advocates for Self-Government as "one of America's experts on theeconomics of illegal drugs." He is also a senior fellow and resident faculty member at the Ludwig vonMises Institute.Jeffrey Tucker editorial vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and current webmaster forthe institute's website, Mises.org. Tucker is also an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center forPublic Policy and an Acton University faculty member.

Thomas Woods American historian and New York Times bestselling author, now resident scholar andsenior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, member of the editorial board for theinstitute's Journal of Libertarian Studies and Libertarian Papers (http://www.libertarianpapers.org/) .He is also an associate scholar of the Abbeville Institute.

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

Main article: Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism fall into several categories: practical criticisms that hold that anarcho-

capitalism is unworkable in practice; critiques that hold that capitalism requires a coercive force (public orprivate) to exist and that a society can be anarchist or capitalist, but not both; general critiques of themorality of capitalism and liberalism, which also apply to anarcho-capitalism; and a utilitarian critique,which claims that anarcho-capitalism would not maximize utility.


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


23/33

Another critique that an anarcho-capitalist society would degenerate into a "war of all against all". Forexample, Noam Chomsky says, "Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if everimplemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human

history."[60] Other critics argue that the free rider problem makes the provision of protection services in ananarcho-capitalist society impractical.

Another state would replace the first

Some argue that a private defense agency would inevitably gain a military monopoly through economy ofscale thus securing significant market power and undermining potential entrants into the market. It has also

been argued that PDAs find to be financially advantageous to collude, and form a cartel with other PDAs,after achieving a level of popularity that would give them an edge over competitors. Anarcho-capitalistsdismiss this claim, citing the power of market competition as a check on monopoly, the defensive nature of

private security, and the level of offensive force that is required to prevent competition. Moreover, theanarcho-capitalists further counter this claim by arguing that it only creates a circular and contradictingargument, in which it implicitly advocates a monopoly on force to stop a monopoly on force from arising.

On page 41 ofThe Market for Liberty, the Tannehills point out that "[Government] attracts the worst kindof men to its ranks, shackles progress, forces its citizens to act against their own judgment, and causesrecurring internal and external strife by its coercive existence. In view of all this, the question becomes not,Who will protect us from aggression? but Who will protect us from the governmental protectors? Thecontradiction of hiring an agency of institutionalized violence to protect us from violence is even more

foolhardy than buying a cat to protect ones parakeet."[61]

The Tannehills, however, maintain that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market. Theywrite on page 81 that "A private defense service company, competing in an open market, couldnt use forceto hold onto its customersif it tried to compel people to deal with it, it would compel them to buy

protection from its competitors and drive itself out of business. The only way a private defense service

company can make money is by protecting its customers from aggression, and the profit motive guaranteesthat this will be its only function and that it will perform this function well."[62] They go on to write:

Private defense service employees would not have the legal immunity which so often protectsgovernmental policemen. If they committed an aggressive act, they would have to pay for it, just thesame as would any other individual. A defense service detective who beat a suspect up wouldnt be ableto hide behind a government uniform or take refuge in a position of superior political power. Defenseservice companies would be no more immune from having to pay for acts of initiated force and fraudthan would bakers or shotgun manufacturers. ... Because of this, managers of defense service companieswould quickly fire any employee who showed any tendency to initiate force against anyone, including

prisoners. To keep such an employee would be too dangerously expensive for them. A job with a

defense agency wouldnt be a position of power over others, as a police force job is, so it wouldn'tattract the kind of people who enjoy wielding power over others, as a police job does. In fact, a defenseagency would be the worst and most dangerous possible place for sadists! Government police can affordto be brutalthey have immunity from prosecution in all but the most flagrant cases, and theircustomers cant desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency. But for afree-market defense service company to be guilty of brutality would be disastrous. Forceevenretaliatory forcewould always be used only as a last resort; it would never be used first, as it is by

governmental police.[63]

Nonetheless, critics like Randall G Holcombe point out that PDAs much like cartels such as OPEC andinternational mafia groups such as Cosa Nostra, would eventually engage in the same business model inorder to maximize profit. Holcombe, in an essay titledIs Government Inevitable?, argues that:

Firms might prey on their competitors' customers, as competing mafia groups do, to show thosecustomers that their current protective firm is not doing the job and thus to induce them to switch


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


24/33

protection firms. This action seems to be a profit-maximizing strategy; hence, protection firms that donot prey on noncustomers may not survive.

Holcombe states that "the mafia offers protection for a fee, but it also uses its resources for predation; andthus profit-maximizing firms could be expected to employ them in the dual roles of protection and

predation."[64]

Minarchist critics argue that, if monopolies of force are inevitable, community-controlled monopolies arepreferable to privately controlled ones. Anarchist critics of private defense agencies state that communitymilitias should exist alongside or instead of private defense agencies. Other critics, both anarchist andminarchist, argue that formal police forces, whether community controlled or privately controlled, have

institutional flaws which informal defense arrangements do not.[65]

Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools

Main article: Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Some scholars do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, while others do. Some socialist

anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism due to their belief that capitalism isinherently authoritarian. In particular they argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary, andthat maintaining the capitalist character of a society requires coercion, which is incompatible with ananarchist society. Moreover, capitalistic market activity is essentially dependent on private ownership and a

particular form of exchange of goods where selling and buying.

On the other hand, anarcho-capitalists such as Per Bylund, webmaster of the anarchism without adjectiveswebsite anarchism.net, note that the disconnect among non-anarcho-capitalist anarchists is likely the resultof an "unfortunate situation of fundamental misinterpretation of anarcho-capitalism." Bylund asks, "Howcan one from this historical heritage claim to be both anarchist and advocate of the exploitative system of

capitalism?" and answers it by pointing out that "no one can, and no one does. There are no anarchistsapproving of such a system, even anarcho-capitalists (for the most part) do not."[66] Bylund explains this asfollows:

Capitalism in the sense of wealth accumulation as a result of oppressive and exploitative wage slaverymust be abandoned. The enormous differences between the wealthy and the poor do not only causetensions in society or personal harm to those exploited, but is essentially unjust. Most, if not all, propertyof today is generated and amassed through the use of force. This cannot be accepted, and no anarchistsaccept this state of inequality and injustice. As a matter of fact, anarcho-capitalists share this view withother anarchists. Murray N. Rothbard, one of the great philosophers of anarcho-capitalism, used a lot oftime and effort to define legitimate property and the generation of value, based upon a notion of natural

rights (see Murray N. Rothbards The Ethics of Liberty). The starting point of Rothbardsargumentation is every mans sovereign and full right to himself and his labor. This is the position ofproperty creation shared by both socialists and classical liberals, and is also the shared position ofanarchists of different colors. Even the statist capitalist libertarian Robert Nozick claimed contemporary

property was unjustly accrued and that a free society, to him a minimalist state, needs to make up withthis injustice (see Robert Nozicks Anarchy, State, Utopia). Thus it seems anarcho-capitalists agreewith Proudhon in that property is theft, where it is acquired in an illegitimate manner. But they alsoagree with Proudhon in that property is liberty (See Albert Meltzers short analysis of Proudhonsproperty is liberty in Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 12-13) in the sense that without

property, i.e. being robbed of the fruits of ones actions, one is a slave. Anarcho-capitalists thusadvocate the freedom of a stateless society, where each individual has the sovereign right to his body

and labor and through this right can pursue his or her own definition of happiness. [66]

Murray N. Rothbard notes that the capitalist system of today is, indeed, not properly anarchistic because it isso often in collusion with the state. According to Rothbard, "what Marx and later writers have done is tolump together two extremely different and even contradictory concepts and actions under the same


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


25/33

portmanteau term. These two contradictory concepts are what I would call 'free-market capitalism' on the

one hand, and 'state capitalism' on the other."[67]

"The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism," writes Rothbard, "is precisely thedifference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation."He goes on to point out that he is "very optimistic about the future of free-market capitalism. Im notoptimistic about the future of state capitalismor rather, I am optimistic, because I think it will eventually

come to an end. State capitalism inevitably creates all sorts of problems which become insoluble."[67]

Murray Rothbard maintains that anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism[68] the only form ofanarchism that could possibly exist in reality, as, he argues, any other form presupposes an authoritarianenforcement of political ideology (redistribution of private property, etc). In short, while granting that certainnon-coercive hierarchies will exist under an anarcho-capitalist system, they will have no real authorityexcept over theirown property: a worker existing within such a 'hierarchy' (answerable to management,

bosses, etc) is free at all times to abandon this voluntary 'hierarchy' and 1) create an organization withinwhich he/she is at (or somewhere near) the top of the 'hierarchy' (entrepreneurship), 2) join an existing'hierarchy' (wherein he/she will likely be lower in the scheme of things), or 3) abandon these hierarchiesaltogether and join/form a non-hierarchical association such as a cooperative, commune, etc. Since there will

be no taxes, such cooperative organizations (labour unions, communes, voluntary socialist associationswherein the product of the labour and of the capital goods of those who join which they were able to

peaceably acquire would be shared amongst all who joined, etc) would, under anarcho-capitalism, enjoy thefreedom to do as they please (provided, of course that they set up their operation on their own -orun-owned- property, in other words so long as they do so without force).

According to this argument, the free market is simply the natural situation that would result from peoplebeing free from authority, and entails the establishment of all voluntary associations in society: cooperatives,non-profit organizations (which would, just as today, be funded by individuals for their existence),

businesses, etc. (in short, a free market does not equal the end of civil society, which continues to be a

critique of anarcho-capitalism). Moreover, anarcho-capitalists (as well as classical liberal minarchists andothers) argue that the application of so-called "leftist" anarchist ideals (e.g. the forceful redistribution ofwealth from one set of people to another) requires an authoritarian body of some sort that will impose thisideology. (Voluntaryist socialism, of course, is completely compatible with anarcho-capitalism.) Some alsoargue that human beings are motivated primarily by the fulfillment of their own needs and wants. Thus, toforcefully prevent people from accumulating private capital, which could result in further fulfillment ofhuman desires, there would necessarily be a redistributive organization of some sort which would have theauthority to, in essence, exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group of people. This

body would thus inherently have political power and would be nothing short of a state. The differencebetween such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is precisely the voluntary nature of

organization within anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a centralized ideology and a paired enforcementmechanism which would be necessary under a coercively 'egalitarian'-anarchist system.

Stability of anarcho-capitalist legal institutions

Two of the more prominent academics who have given some serious thought to essentially anarcho-capitalistlegal institutions are Richard Posner, who is now a Federal Appeals Judge and a prolific legal scholar, and

economist William Landes. In their 1975 paper "The Private Enforcement of Law",[69] they discuss aprevious thought experiment undertaken by Becker and Stigler in which it was proposed that lawenforcement could be privatized, and they explain why they believe such a system would not be

economically efficient. According to David D. Friedman's later rebuke "Efficient Institutions for the PrivateEnforcement of Law",[70]

[Landes and Posner argued] that the private system has essential flaws that make it inferior to an idealpublic system except for offenses that can be detected and punished at near zero cost. They concede that


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


26/33

the private system might still be preferable to the less than ideal public system that we observe. Howeverthey argue that the prevalence of private enforcement for offenses that are easily detected (most civiloffenses) and its rarity for offenses that are difficult to detect (most criminal offenses) suggest that ourlegal system is, at least in broad outline, efficient, using in each case the most efficient system ofenforcement.

Friedman, however, proceeds to argue that "the inefficiency Landes and Posner have demonstrated in theparticular private enforcement institutions they describe can be eliminated by minor changes in the

institutions."

Anarcho-capitalist literature

Main article: Anarcho-capitalist 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 Austrian micro and macroeconomics,Power and MarketClassification of State economic interventions,The Ethics of Liberty Moral justification of a free society

For a New Liberty An outline of how an anarcho-capitalist society could work

Frederic Bastiat, The Law Radical classical liberalismBruce L. Benson: The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The StateBruce L. Benson: To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal JusticeDavidson & Rees-Mogg, The Sovereign IndividualHistorians look at technology and its implicationsDavid D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom Classic consequentialist defense of anarchism

Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State (http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0146.php)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private PropertyHans-Hermann Hoppe,A Theory of Socialism and CapitalismHans-Hermann Hoppe,Democracy: The God That FailedAlbert Jay Nock, Our Enemy the State (http://www.mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf) Oppenheimer'sthesis applied to early US historyJohn Frederic Kosanke, Civilization 101 (http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke

/Civilization101.html) An anarcho-capitalist primerStefan Molyneux, Universally Preferable Behavior (http://www.box.net/shared/static

/mb4n75g0s8.pdf)Stefan Molyneux,Everyday Anarchy (http://www.box.net/shared/static/bic2do4ws8.pdf)Stefan Molyneux,Practical AnarchyFranz Oppenheimer, The State Analysis of State; political means vs. economic meansHerbert Spencer, Social Statics (http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/Spencer0236/SocialStatics

/0331_Bk.html) Includes the essay "The Right to Ignore the State"Linda and Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty Classic on Private defense agenciesGeorge H Smith,Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_4

/3_4_4.pdf) Examines the Epistemic and entrepreneurial role of Justice agencies.Edward P Stringham,Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice(http://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&printsec=frontcover&

dq=anarchy+and+the+law&ei=mHD2SOhKmPgw7bCB6wU) 700 page book presenting the majorarguments historical studies about anarcho capitalism.

Fiction


de 33 01/01/2011 12:44


27/33

Anarcho-capitalism has been examined in certain works of literature, particularly science fiction. An earlyexample is Robert A. Heinlein's 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, in which he explores what heterms "rational anarchism". A contemporary anarcho-capitalistic work of science fiction is John C. Wright'sThe Golden Age.

In The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson the Discordian Society headed by the characterHagbard Celine is anarcho-capitalist. The manifesto of the society in the novel 'Never Whistle While You'rePissing' contains Celine's Laws, three laws regarding government and social interaction.

Cyberpunk and postcyberpunk authors have been particularly fascinated by the idea of the break-down ofthe nation-state. Several stories of Vernor Vinge, includingMarooned in Realtime, feature anarcho-capitalistsocieties, often portrayed in a favorable light. Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, MaxBarry'sJennifer Government, Cory Doctorow'sDown and Out in the Magic Kingdom, and L. Neil Smith'sThe Probability Broach all explore anarcho-capitalist ideas. The cyberpunk portrayal of anarchy varies fromthe downright grim to the cheerfully optimistic, and it need not imply anything specific about the writer's

political views. Neal Stephenson, in particular, refrains from sweeping political statements when deliberately

provoked.[71][72]

Ken MacLeod's Fall Revolution series explores the future consequences of the br