Right Vs Left Libertarianism | NonCompete & Brenton Vs David Friedman & Michael Huemer 5

I tend to agree with this assessment from the “Sovereign Counties” site.

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. The system presumes a state enforcing exclusive entitlement to productive means. Competing security agencies, enforcing these entitlements and only these entitlements, constitute a state.

Anarcho-communism as usually described is not stateless either.

County sovereignty, or free association through local autonomy, does not claim to be strictly stateless, but it is closer to anarcho-communism than anarcho-capitalism. Inalienable self-ownership assumes a state enforcing the right. County boundaries and non-aggression between counties also assume a state, but the powers of this state can be distributed among the counties.

County sovereignty permits as much or as little capitalism as free people want. Anarcho-capitalism coercively stacks the deck in favor of capitalists with hereditary title in perpetuity. The capitalists are vassals of a state, and their state invariably expands their privilege through rent-seeking.

I don’t have any problem with people calling themselves “anarcho-capitalist” but political decentralization automatically implies economic decentralization. Bye, bye central banking, currency monopolies, patents/intellectual property/copyrights, land monopolies, corporate personhood, corporate welfare, “public-private partnerships,” limited liability laws, subsidies, government contracts, loans, guarantees, bailouts, purchases of goods, price controls, regulatory privilege, grants of monopolies, protectionist tariffs and trade policies, bankruptcy laws, military intervention to gain access to international markets and protect foreign investments, regulating or prohibiting organized labor activity, eminent domain, discriminatory taxation, ignoring corporate crimes and countless other forms of state-imposed favors and privileges. Even on the local level, many of these kinds of features exist which have the collective effect of centralization control over wealth, property, and resources.

5 comments

  1. “Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. The system presumes a state enforcing exclusive entitlement to productive means.”

    YIKES!!! I consider that assertion to be truly wacky! The ‘wacky’ part is the “exclusive entitlement to productive means”. While I don’t label myself as an “anarcho-capitalism” (I could call myself a ‘free-market-anarchist, I don’t like the term “capitalism” used as a synonym for “free market) I am not aware of any intended prohibition on “worker-owned” businesses.

    Although, that might be among the deluded nightmares of anti-‘anarcho-capitalists’.

    Further, the same deluded “anti-‘anarcho-capitalists’ ” seem to take the opposite tack: When they say, “Workers should own the means of production”, what theyseem to MEAN is that “ONLY Workers should own the means of production”.

    But to accomplish that kind of exclusivity seems to only be possible with a powerful State that enforces such a rule.

    I do, of course, agree with your own comments, above:

    “I don’t have any problem with people calling themselves “anarcho-capitalist” but political decentralization automatically implies economic decentralization. Bye, bye central banking, currency monopolies, patents/intellectual property/copyrights, land monopolies, corporate personhood, corporate welfare, “public-private partnerships,” limited liability laws, subsidies, government contracts, loans, guarantees, bailouts, purchases of goods, price controls, regulatory privilege, grants of monopolies, protectionist tariffs and trade policies, bankruptcy laws, military intervention to gain access to international markets and protect foreign investments…”

    Ultimately, I think the problem is the severe continued abuse of the term “anarchism”: People use that to be virtually anything they want. I, instead, interpret that to mean, “No government at all”.

  2. I agree with most of the list of things that vanish under anarcho-capitalism, but not all. Bankruptcy will exist in some form, since there will be firms or individuals that end up with liabilities less than assets and legal rules will have to deal with those situations. There is no particular reasons why the corporate form wouldn’t exist, or why private courts would refuse to treat corporations as persons. Limited liability might exist.

    I don’t know what you mean by “land monopoly.” I expect land will be treated as private property, given the large advantages to property over commons in that context.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s