From: Subject: The New Right & Anarcho-Capitalism Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:24:37 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 The New Right & Anarcho-Capitalism

The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism.

This is Chapter 36 of "Demanding the Impossible: A History of = Anarchism" by=20 Peter Marshall.=20

Thanks to Richard J. Winkel (rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu) by way of=20 K.K.Campbell (zodiac@zooid.guild.org) for making this available.=20

Chapter 36: The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism has recently had a considerable vogue in the West = where it=20 has helped put the role of the State back on the political agenda. It = has become=20 a major ideological challenge to the dominant liberalism which sees a = role for=20 government in the protection of property. The anarcho-capitalists would = like to=20 dismantle government and allow complete laissez-faire in the economy. = Its=20 adherents propose that all public services be turned over to private=20 entrepreneurs, even public spaces like town halls, streets and parks. = Free=20 market capitalism, they insist, is hindered not enhanced by the State.=20

Anarcho-capitalists share Adam Smith's confidence that somehow = private=20 interest will translate itself into public good rather than public = squalor. They=20 are convinced that the 'natural laws' of economics can do without the = support of=20 positive man-made laws. The 'invisible hand' of the market will be = enough to=20 bring social order.=20

Anarcho-capitalism has recently had the greatest impact in the United = States,=20 where the Libertarian Party has taken it up as the house ideology, and = where=20 Republicans like Ronald Reagan wanted to be remembered for cutting = taxation and=20 for getting 'the government off peoples' backs'. In the United Kingdom,=20 neo-Conservatives argue that 'there is no such thing as society' and = wish to=20 'roll back the frontiers of the State' -- a view adopted evangelically, = in=20 theory if not always in practice, by Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister = from 1979=20 to 1990. State socialism is attacked not so much because it is = egalitarian but=20 because it seeks to accrue more powers for the State to exercise = centrally.=20

The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the = demise of=20 Benjamin Tucker's journal Liberty in 1907, American = individualist=20 anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism = continued=20 to re-emerge occassionally in the offerings of isolated thinkers. The = young=20 essayist Randolph Bourne, writing outside the anarchist movement, = distinguished=20 between society and the State, invented the famous slogan 'War is the = Health of=20 the State', and drew out the authoritarian and conformist dangers of the = 'herd'.[1]=20

FRANZ OPPENHEIMER's view of the State as 'the organization of the = political=20 means' and as the 'systematization of the predatory process over a given = territory' influenced libertarians and conservatives alike in the = twenties.[2]=20 The Jeffersonian liberal ALBERT JAY NOCK reached anarchist conclusions = in=20 Our Enemy The State (1935) at the time of the New Deal. A=20 conservative of the laissez-faire school, he foresaw 'a steady progress = in=20 collectivism running into a military despotism of a severe type'.[3] It = would=20 involve steadily-increasing centralization, bureaucracy, and political = control=20 of the market. The resulting State-managed economy would be so = inefficient and=20 corrupt that it would need forced labor to keep it going.=20

Nock's warning did not go unheeded. FRIEDRICH A. HAYEK spelt out in = The=20 Road to Serfdom (1944) the dangers of collectivism. In his = restatement of=20 classic liberalism in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), = he=20 rejected the notion of social justice and argued that the market creates = spontaneous social order. But while he wished to reduce coercion to a = minimum,=20 he accepted the need for the coercion of a minimal State to prohibit = coercive=20 acts by private parties through law enforcement. He also accepted = taxation and=20 compulsory military service. While a harsh critic of egalitarianism and = of=20 government intervention in the economy, he was ready to countenance a = degree of=20 welfare provision which cannot be adequately provided by the market. His = views=20 have had an important influence on neo-Conservatives, especially those = on the=20 right wing of the Conservative Party in Britain.=20

Anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman and Murray Rothbard go much = further.=20 In some ways, their position appears to be a revival of the principles = of the=20 Old Right against the New Deal which sought government interference in = the=20 economy, but they are not only motivated by a nostalgia for a thoroughly = free=20 market but are aggressively anti-authoritarian. Where Tucker called = anarchism=20 'consistent Manchesterism', that is taking the nineteenth-century = laissez-faire=20 school of economists to their logical conclusion, anarcho-capitalists = might be=20 called consistent Lockeans.=20

Following Locke, classic liberals argue that the principals task of=20 government is to protect the natural rights to life, liberty and = property=20 because a 'state of nature' where there is no common law the enjoyment = of such=20 rights would be uncertain and inconvenient. The anarcho-capitalists also = ask,=20 like Locke in his Second Treatise, 'If Man in the state of = Nature=20 be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person = and=20 possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he = part with=20 his freedom?'[4] Unlike Locke, however, the anarcho-capitalists do not = find such=20 a state of nature without a common judge inconvenient or uncertain. They = maintain that even the minimal State is unnecessary since the defence of = person=20 and property can be carried out by private protection agencies.=20

DAVID FRIEDMAN sees such agencies as both brokers of mini-social = contracts=20 and producers of 'laws' which conform to the market demand for rules to = regulate=20 commerce. Each person would be free to subscribe to a protective = association of=20 his choice, since 'Protection from coercion is an economic good'.[5] = Apart from=20 adumbrating The Machinery of Freedom (1973), Friedman has = populated=20 Hayek's defence of capitalism as the best antidote to the serfdom of=20 collectivism and the State.=20

The writings of AYN RAND, a refugee from the Soviet Union, best = represent the=20 intellectual background to the new right-wing libertarianism in the = United=20 States. In her The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of = Egoism=20 (1964), she attempted a philosophical defence of egoism while in her = novels she=20 portrayed a superior individual fighting the forces of collectivism,=20 particularly in the form of the State. Her superior individual, driven = by a=20 Nietzschean will to power, appears in the guise of a capitalist = entrepreneur who=20 is presented as the source of all wealth and creator of all progress. = Rand=20 claimed that she had a direct knowledge of objective reality, and her=20 'Objectivist' movement had a considerable vogue in the sixties. Like = most=20 anarcho-capitalists, she is convinced of the truth of her own views, = which to=20 others appear mere dogma. She remains a minimal statist rather than a = strict=20 anarchist.=20

Amongst anarcho-capitalist apologists, the economist MURRAY ROTHBARD = is=20 probably most aware of the anarchist tradition. He was originally = regarded as an=20 extreme right-wing Republican, but went on to edit la Boetie's = libertarian=20 classic Of Voluntary Servitude and now calls himself an = anarchist.=20 'If you wish to know how the libertarians regard the State and any of = its acts,"=20 he wrote in For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto = (1973),=20 'simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all the libertarian = attitudes=20 will logically fall into place.' He reduces the libertarian creed to one = central=20 axiom, 'that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or = property=20 of anyone else'.[6] Neither the State nor any private party therefore = can=20 initiate or threaten the use of force against any person for any = purpose. Free=20 individuals should regulate their affairs and dispose of their property = only by=20 voluntary agreement based on contractual obligation.=20

Rejecting the State as a 'protection' with an illegitimate claim on = the=20 monopoly of force, Rothbard would like to see it dissolved, as would = Friedman,=20 into social and market arrangements. He proposes that disputes over = violations=20 of persons and property may be settled voluntarily by arbitration firms = whose=20 decisions are enforceable by private protection agencies.=20

Rothbard described an anarchist society where 'there is no legal = possibility=20 for coercive aggression against the person or property of any = individual'. But=20 where Tucker recognized no inherent right to property, Rothbard insists = on the=20 need for a 'basic libertarian code of the inviolate right of person and=20 property'.[7] In addition, for all his commitment to a Stateless = society,=20 Rothbard is willing to engage in conventional politics. He helped found = the=20 Libertarian Party in the USA which wants to abolish the entire federal=20 regulatory apparatus as well as social security, welfare, public = education, and=20 taxation. Accepting Bourne's view that war is the health of the State, = the Party=20 wants the United States to withdraw from the United Nations, end its = foreign=20 commitments, and reduce its military forces to those required for = minimal=20 defence.=20

Rothbard argued at the 1977 Libertarian Party Congress that to become = a true=20 libertarian it was necessary to be 'born again', not once but twice, in = a=20 baptism of reason as well as of will. Since in his view libertarianism = is the=20 only creed compatible with the nature of man and the world, he is = convinced that=20 it will win because it is true. Whatever the workers and bureaucrats = might think=20 or want, Statism will collapse of its own contradictions and the free = market=20 will prevail throughout the world.=20

However libertarian in appearance, there are some real difficulties = in the=20 anarcho-capitalists' position. If laws and courts are replaced by = arbitrary=20 firms, why should an individual accept their verdict? And since he = 'buys'=20 justice, what assurances are there that the verdicts would be fair and=20 impartial? If the verdicts are enforced by private protection agencies, = it would=20 seem likely, as ROBERT NOZICK has pointed out, that a dominant = protective agency=20 (the one offering the most powerful and comprehensive protection) would=20 eventually emerge through free competition.[8] A de facto territorial = monopoly=20 would thus result from the competition among protection agencies which = would=20 then constitute a proto-State. The only difference between the = 'ultraminimal'=20 State of a dominant protection agency and a minimal State would be that = its=20 services would be available only to those who buy them.=20

Nozick's work State, Anarchy and Utopia (1974) is widely = regarded as one of the most important works in contemporary political=20 philosophy. Inspired in part by individual anarchist arguments, = especially those=20 of Spooner and Tucker, and replying to the libertarian view of Rothbard = and=20 Rand, he calls for a minimal State to oversee private protection = agencies to=20 ensure contracts are kept by property-owning individuals. He insists = however=20 that a man ruled by others against his will, whose life and property are = under=20 their control, is no less a slave because he has the vote and = periodically may=20 'choose' his masters.=20

Nozick has helped to make libertarian and anarchist theory acceptable = in=20 academic circles. But in the end he opts for a nightwatchman State in = order to=20 protect the individual's rights to life, liberty and property. In his = 'framework=20 for utopia', he proposes a society of independent city-States organized=20 according to their inhabitants' preferences. He defends capitalism under = the=20 theory of just entitlement, arguing that just acquisitions and just = transfers=20 made in the absence of force or fraud legitimize the distribution of = wealth=20 resulting from capitalist exchange. However poorly a person may fare in = the=20 exercise of human liberty, there is no moral reason to correct market = forces by=20 redistributing wealth. The acceptable maxim of capitalism for Nozick is=20 therefore: 'From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen'.[9]=20

Nozick joins a group of American philosophers like JOHN HOSPERS and = ERIC MACK=20 who adopt 'minarchy' rather than anarchy. They call for a minimal State, = restricting the scope of the modern state to Locke's 'common judge with=20 authority' to make laws (for the protection of property), to punish = thieves and=20 malefactors, and to defend the nation against foreign aggression.[10] = They are=20 right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists in the tradition of = Jefferson,=20 insisting 'that government is best which governs least'.=20

A more thorough-going philosophical defence of anarchism has been put = forward=20 by ROBERT PAUL WOLFF. He rejects the political legitimacy of the State = on a=20 neo-Kantian principle of moral autonomy. he assumes that in so far as = people are=20 rational and are to act they must be autonomous. The autonomous man who=20 determines his own acts refuses to be ruled and denies all claims to = political=20 authority: 'For the autonomous man, there is no such thing, strictly = speaking,=20 as a command.'[11] Wolff does not however see any immediate implications = for his=20 philosophical anarchism and ethical individualism. In his 'Utopian = Glimpses of a=20 World Without States' in A Defense of Anarchism (1970), he=20 maintains that a high order of social co-ordination in a society in = which no one=20 claims legitimate authority would only be possible after its members had = achieved a high level of moral and intellectual development. Indeed, = rather than=20 offering a defence of anarchism as a political theory, he seems more = concerned=20 with elaborating a form of moral and political scepticism.[12]=20

Wolff's practical proposals are also problematic. He recommends a = form of=20 'instant direct democracy' based on a system of 'voting machines' in = every home=20 linked to a computer in Washington. Each Bill would then be voted on by = all the=20 people after it had been discussed by their representatives in a = national=20 assembly. But such a system could easily lead to representatives = manipulating=20 their votes as they do in existing parliamentary democracies. There is = also a=20 big difference, recognized in part by Wolff, between the passive role of = listener and the active role of participant in a debate. The kind of = direct=20 democracy practiced in ancient Athens, which actively involved all the = citizens,=20 would appear to be preferable to television viewers being merely able to = register their response to decisions made by an elected elite. Wolff's = proposal=20 would turn citizenship into little more than a spectator-sport. He = allows no=20 meaningful debate or collective discussion of ends.=20

Although he recommends extreme economic decentralization, Wolff = alines=20 himself with the anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians by wanting = to retain=20 private property and the market to co-ordinate human behavior. Again, he = suggests that the army could be run on the basis of voluntary commitment = and=20 submission to orders but this would seem little different from existing = forms of=20 voluntary conscription.=20

In the utopias of the anarcho-capitalists, there is little reason to = believe=20 that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the=20 powerless and poor as they do at present. It is difficult to imagine = that=20 protective services could impose their ideas of fair procedure without = resorting=20 to coercion. With the free market encouraging selfishness, there is no = assurance=20 that 'public goods' like sanitation and clean water would be provided = for all.=20 Indeed, the anarcho-capitalists deny the very existence of collective = interests=20 and responsibilities. They reject the rich communitarian tradition of = the=20 ancient Greek polis in favor of the most limited form of possessive=20 individualism. In their drive for self-interest, they have no conception = of the=20 general good or public interest. In his relationship with society, the=20 anarcho-capitalist stands alone, an egoistic and calculating consumer; = society=20 is considered to be nothing more than a loose collection of autonomous=20 individuals.=20

The anarcho-capitalist definition of freedom is entirely negative. It = calls=20 for the absence of coercion but cannot guarantee the positive freedom of = individual autonomy and independence. Nor does it recognize the equal = right of=20 all to the means of subsistence. Hayek speaks on behalf of the=20 anarcho-capitalist when he warns: 'Above all we must recognize that we = may be=20 free and yet miserable.'[13] Others go even further to insist that = liberty and=20 bread are not synonymous and that we have 'the liberty to die of = hunger'.[14] In=20 the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public = spaces=20 into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences=20 protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is = enjoyed by=20 all.=20

Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are = capitalists=20 first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a = liberal=20 interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private = property.=20 They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for = the weak,=20 powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free = exchange=20 in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would = most=20 likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence = associations=20 perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism = is=20 merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. = It is=20 tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage = to=20 others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces = of the=20 market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the = powers of=20 the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and = oppressed.=20

As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of = traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, = few=20 anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp = since they=20 do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their=20 self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising = voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they = do=20 reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians = rather=20 than anarchists.[15]=20

(End of chapter.)=20

Mike Huben (mrh@centerline.com) =