Difference between revisions of "Anarcho-Capitalism"

Revision as of 03:47, 24 May 2009

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

EoF

Anarcho-capitalism is a social darwinistic ideology, which originated in the 1960s in the USA. It is significant influenced by the Austrian school. Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and theory, non-anarchist, which want to privatize States for the benefit of capitalist companies in competing. They defend actual economical and social hierarchy. Anarcho-capitalists state that anarcho-capitalism is a school in anarchism... They attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in classical liberalism, with Anarchism and anarchist themes such as opposition to the State and individual freedom. Anarchist basically oppose anarcho-capitalism, since capitalism is a kind of authority and it requires a social darwinistic practice. In anarcho-capitalism the refusion of authority only includes mechanisms, which get in the way of market liberalism. Anarchists further argue that the word "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, a false theory, because anarchism and capitalism are not compatible with each other, and that anti-statism and individual freedom aren't sufficient to be enounced like "anarchist".

Anarcho-capitalist views are not in accordance with the basic political consensus of Anarchopedia.

Theory

Anarcho-capitalism aims to be a liberal version of capitalism, where the state in its current form would no longer exist, and where regalian doctrine of it would be given to private organisations (private tribunals, private police, private army...).

Anarcho-Capitalism embraces the capitalist free market, which contrasts with traditional anarchism as anarchist philosophy has historically been opposed to capitalism. It should be noted that anarcho-capitalists define the words "capitalism" and free market differently from Anarchists, favouring the capitalists Austrian economic definition of the words. This difference in terminology is often the basis for controversy.

It emerged in the 1950s out of the disputed tradition of classical liberalism, and generally sets itself in contrast to individualist anarchists theory. Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist influenced by work of individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, rejecting from them the critics of wage labour, is thought as the founder of anarcho-capitalism.

Varying Views on Intellectual Property

While some Anarcho-capitalists support intellectual property, many oppose it, saying that intellectual property infringes on physical property. Jeremy Spazmania, 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

The anarcho-capitalism: "Just for rich"

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.

From the "Anarcho"-capitalist FAQ:

"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 1 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."

Quotations

"capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." - Murray Rothbard

"Without property there is no free personal life. Without property there is no power to act. The man who treads on strange ground, touches strange property at every movement he makes is not a free man. And the word 'property' must be taken literally as ownership, or, as we say to-day, private property. Without private property there is no freedom." - Emil Brunner

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