Some libertarians — including some of our best friends — like to call themselves anarcho-capitalists (an-cap for short). But please consider three ways this label fails.
Failure #1: The word anarchy no longer means what it once did.
Anarchy meant “no ruler” to the ancient Greeks. Many modern libertarians use it the same way. But current usage defines the word as meaning violence, chaos, and lawlessness, largely because of bad things done by left-anarchists. Thus, the word anarchy no longer conveys what these libertarians want it to mean. An effort to restore the original meaning might be worthwhile were it not for….
Failure #2: The word anarchy doesn’t describe what most anarcho-capitalists advocate.
Most “anarcho-capitalists” advocate institutions of non-state governance. Murray Rothbard, the supreme “anarcho-capitalist”, wrote whole books describing such institutions. He favored non-state police, courts, defense agencies, and various companies that impose rules via contract, like Underwriters Laboratories. Those are all institutions of governance. So…
What “anarcho-capitalists” really oppose is not governance, but The State, which operates through aggressive means. If the U.S. “government” decided to only use force defensively (including no taxation and no monopoly), most “anarcho-capitalists” could embrace it. Indeed…
The term anarchist more properly applies to The State, which is indeed violent, chaotic, and lawless (unaccountable).
Failure #3: The label anarcho-capitalism assigns too much importance to capitalism.
The word capitalism describes only the part of the market process that uses savings to expand production. This excludes many other aspects of the market such as trade and prices. It makes no sense to use the name of a part to describe the whole.
It’s fun to shock and awe people. The term anarcho-capitalism certainly strikes a rebel pose. But after the fun is over, it makes sense in no other way. Labels like voluntaryist and post-statist do a better job and should be preferred.
Does this way of thinking intrigue you? Want to learn more or participate in creating such a society? Then join the Zero Aggression Project using this subscription form…
Once again, you hit the nail on the head. Anarchy is the State. Self-rulership is what we desire, except where we come together voluntarily – by individual/personal decision [not “social contract”] – to seek strength in community. If we cannot decide for ourselves what will will and will not participate in we are not even remotely free.
Thanks for this email. I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions.
I think that Libertarianism will be a market event. That is, there may be other alternatives available but the libertarian movement has so much more to offer than all of the alternatives. If the government would become ineffective for whatever reason (loss of funds, bankrupt, etc.), the population would feel safer under the “L” umbrella.
Advantages being not having to defend their choice with violence, Realization that there would be localized free market tools such as neighborhood security and fire protection services, local insurance, means of addressing aggression with use of an arbitrator,
There are many advantages to the free market, non aggression, way of life. The most important freedom book in my library is The Market for Liberty. It succinctly points out the advantages and means of securing a liberty minded community by intellectual means.
The typical infant human’s first experience of governance arises from our planet’s oldest governing institution: The human family.
Families generally self-govern. There are regular times and places for meals. There are practices of personal hygiene. One is taught not to urinate or defecate where the family stores it’s food supply. One learns the benefits of cooperation, because one’s elders’ empathy brings comfort while resistance has adverse consequences.
Are families perfect?
No more so than individuals.
Still, the family that self-governs effectively, tends to have fewer adverse interactions with the neighboring families.
This indicates that if one wants to invest in creating a more-peaceful and orderly planet, the place to start is by assisting families in self-governing more effectively. Using force to intervene, is only a temporary fix, because people must be reminded of the need for personal self-governance, if they are to understand why peace results when we are mindful of what our actions may do to others. In short, teaching self-governance is necessary to create peace. Politics, the organized use of retaliatory force, is not a guarantee of peace.
I think of anarchy as lawlessness. And self proclaimed anarchists tend to have a deep sense of what is right. The lawless ones are those in civil government who abuse and usurp power under the color of law. They hide behind the invisible thin blue line. But alas, the emperor has no close.