Difference between revisions of "Anarcho-Capitalism"

Revision as of 23:10, 21 September 2008

Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast has a podcast related to this aticle Ownership of Self

EoF

One version of an anarcho-capitalist flag Others include the Libertatis Aequilibritas

Anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist libertarian view that, while believing in some personal freedoms, differs from anarchism on the matter of property rights. Unlike Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism views the current capitalist system as a symptom of the state, which it defines as a monopoly on force. It emerged in the 1950s out of the disputed tradition of classical liberalism, and generally sets itself in contrast to classical anarchist theory. Anarcho-Capitalism embraces the free market which contrasts with traditional Anarchisms that have historically been opposed to market relationships. It should be noted that Anarcho-Capitalists define the words "capitalism" and free market differently from classical Anarchists in favour of the Austrian economic definition of the words. This difference in terminology is often the basis for controversy. Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist influenced by individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, is often thought of as the founder of modern anarcho-capitalism, although most anarchists argue this is simply a recent claim to give anarcho-capitalism seemingly greater legitimacy.

Varying Views on Intellectual Property

While some Anarcho-capitalists support intellectual property, many oppose it, saying that intellectual property infringes on physical property. Jeremy Sapienza, founder anti-state.com writes, "Is there nothing more preposterous than equating intellectual property, whatever the hell that is, with real, personal property?"[1] The debate over intellectual property among Anarcho-capitalists is still on-going.

Wage Labor

Anarcho-capitalists state that an employer-employee relationship is an elaborate and mutually profitable form of voluntary association. They resent government as a parasite that corrupts, biases, impedes and distorts what would otherwise be peaceful fair and free associations.

Anarcho-capitalists consider that in consenting to a contract, that each party was free to refuse, the contract is voluntary and therefore legitimate and beneficial, claiming any external power that attempts to prevent such relationship is itself an oppression to be fought.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that, no matter what social organization may or may not exist, social organizations will never eliminate the basic human requirement to work in order to support themselves. Therefore an objection based on a constraint that cannot be overcome is useless to argue about and not a rational objection at all. Additionally, they argue that while someone may not be able to refuse to work in general, one has the largest diversity on the free market with regard to their employers or beginning their own business operation. What matters is that no given employer/employee contract be coercive. Thus, Anarcho-capitalists believe that an individual may choose to work in any manner they wish, be it for a wage or for some other means of payment, so long as there is no coercion involved.

Criticism of Anarcho-capitalism

This section criticises the topic of the article from the perspective of anarchism. If possible, please keep criticism constructive.

“Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.” ~ Mihail Bakunin

Anarcho-capitalism is a view that departs from anarchist theory in that it regards only the government as unnecessary and harmful to human society. In its embrace of capitalist economics, Anarcho-capitalism contradicts classical and contemporary anarchism, an anti-capitalist philosophy. Anarcho-capitalists are isolated from the anarchist community. Anarcho-capitalism is considered a paradox by most anarchists.

There is no form of capitalism that does not rely on the concentration of wealth and the existence of private property, and the need for defense of this property through a public or private state. James Donald and Bryan Caplan have attempted (in the 1990s) to frame their arguments in language and documents that appear to be legitimate because they use certain key phrases and structure and some author's attempts to have some connection to scholarly circles with anarchist legitimacy. None of the big names and figures mentioned in anarcho-capitalist philosophy include actual anarchists (they mention Benjamin Tucker or Fred Woodworth only to grab an occasional condemnation of socialism or seeming advocacy of "anarchist private property", yet once this is established these people quickly disappear to be replaced by more "pure" capitalist individuals such as Bastiat and Rothbard).

Another major problem with the ideology of anarcho-capitalism is substitution of 'opportunity' for 'freedom', in the philosophical discourse. This allows to ignore the need to maintain the balance of freedoms, balance between positive and negative freedoms, as well as balance between freedoms of different individuals. Concentrating on a select few anarcho-capitalists show how opportunities allowed to those few are lessened by socialism, and thus conclude that socialism is unable to be free. This argument is dominant in the areas where state socialism has been a major ideology gaining or competing for dominance, this happens as a result of the dominance of individualistic element in the rebellion.

External links

• Anti-state.com
• Black Crayon

Criticism of Anarcho-capitalism

• Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement by Jeff Draughn
• Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy - by Peter Sabatini
• The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism, by Peter Marshall
• Anarchism and Capitalism, by Andrew Flood
• Anarchism and "Anarcho"-capitalism
• Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2