12 votes

Anarcho-Capitalism: A Primer

Over the last couple months, I've taken on the task of writing a series of articles exploring the basic ideas of anarcho-captitalism. This is the idea of a completely stateless society ownership of all capital is private. Essentially, anarcho-capitalism takes the concepts of libertarianism and the non-aggression principle to their logical and consistent philosophical conclusion.

The basic design of my initial articles were based around the first few lectures of a course at the Mises Academy taught by economist and author of Chaos Theory: Two Essays On Market Anarchy, Robert Murphy.

To fully embrace the ideas of anarcho-capitalism can be a giant leap for many people. Our society has been cultivated to believe that government should provide everything from roads to education to quality control of food products. It can be difficult enough to convince the average person to even consider that the free market could provide these things, let alone convince them that the State should cease to exist all together! Even many passionate libertarians have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that the free market could effectively provide things like courts and military defense.

I plan to explore these concepts further in the coming weeks and months, but for newer readers or those that just need a refresher, here are my initial posts on anarcho-capitalism, submitted for your review.

I explained why I think it is important to explore the concepts of anarcho-capitalism in my initial post, Why Anarcho-Capitalism?

Continue to the articles




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Love this series

Its a difficult concept even for those of us pretty onboard with libertarian philosophy, but these are important ideas for a free people to at least consider. Especially those educated through the state apparatus.

The Anarchist's Constitution

  1. There is no Sovereign Immunity. Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
  2. The Right to be left alone is Absolute. Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
  3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
  4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I have found that the really essential idea to get across is the idea that there is no way to limit or change liability for third parties. Combine this with the British Rule, or actually the World's Rule, that losers in tort cases pay a reasonable part of the victor's court costs, and suddenly it's a whole new playing court (pun intended).

Ayn Rand's objection that competing Sovereignties have no recourse but to resolve conflicts by violence totally ignores the costs of blood and violence of such actions in the face of the availability of binding arbitration. Always remember, whoever imposes costs on innocent third parties, is fully liable for those costs. No exceptions.

Unlike the socialist, property hating, chaos loving, anarchists of a century ago, libertarian anarchists love property and law so long as it is made voluntarily by the actors involved and not something imposed by that mass hallucination called the state.

One fairly simple process to get the system started would be that when one turns eighteen years of age and wants to be considered responsible for one’s own debts and choices, each person would sign a contract stating under what system of criminal and statutory law they want to be held accountable to. If they never make such a commitment, then they are still considered to be a legal child. If they want to change, or amend, this commitment, they are always free to do so, while still being held fully responsible for any debts or obligations they have freely entered into.

Consider the fact that a person can have the citizenship of any one or more sovereign countries, while living in a third country. This does not seem to present any insurmountable problems. What if the sovereign countries, instead of being attached to fixed geographical regions, could be purely legal entities? How many awkward problems go away forever now in the face of ubiquitous Internet connected electronic devices that can arbitrage money, and contracts on the spot. Compare the problems associated with everything being voluntarily negotiable, with everything being decided by bureaucrats and strangers and then imposed at the point of a gun.

Always remember that EVERY STATE LAW YOU APPROVE OF NECESSARILY IMPLIES THE POWER TO KILL ANYONE WHO DOES NOT COMPLY. Even if you are not an Anarchist, doesn’t moral intuition imply that there ought to be damn few state laws then?

See also Taoism and Anarchy

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Vital read

For anyone serious about libertarian thinking

Bump!

There are many anarco-capitalists in my area that supports Ron Paul.