Hey I am doing research on the development of anarcho capitalism. Does anyone know of any secondary source material that I may be able to use to begin my understanding of why anarcho capitalism developed? I appreciate any and all effort that is able to be given to help me start my research on this.
Also, does anyone know why exactly anarcho-capitalism developed in a historical context? Was it based on the new right, marginalist revolution, etc?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I'm actually looking for sources on why modern anarcho-capitalism(namely Murray Rothbard) developed.
CrazyDesi:I'm actually looking for sources on why modern anarcho-capitalism(namely Murray Rothbard) developed.
On why it developed or how it developed?
Why it developed is because it's true!
How it developed stems from Rothbard's philosophies. He coined the term, I suggest reading some biographical material on him (and For a New Liberty which has been posted). For a New Liberty The best I've found:
An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard by Justin Raimondo.
I am looking more for the historical context in which anarcho-capitalism developed. Why were monopolies considered so evil to Rothbard? Why is he so against socialist? Is there a movement that is occuring that causes him to state these as important facts and not something that individuals know innately? Etc.
There's really no historical context to it, at least in the sense that it was developed in response to a pervading ideology or events.
Edit: I may have to eat my words about that; contemporary libertarianism, I suppose, could be viewed as a response to the nineteenth or twentieth century advent of the welfare-warfare state (which has powers far exceeding that of the pre-modern state, such as in the abilities to wage war on a world-wide scale and ensconce itself in every aspect of private life) and all the new sorts of statism that came with it.
Anarcho-capitalism is best seen as a synthesis of individualist anarchism, Austrian economics*, Old Right non-interventionism, and classical liberal natural rights theory, as these were Rothbard's greatest influences. At the present it is not so much a movement (certainly not in the populistic sense of the word) but rather a somewhat obscure theory among academics.
*- this by itself should answer your questions regarding monopoly and socialism.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
The early socialists* were split into two camps: Those who wnted government to control everything(communists); those who wanted to get rid of it(anarchists).
The anarchists believed that many monopolies, trusts, ect could only really exist because the government backed them up and gave them power. This caused so much of the plight of the common man working to make a living. If capitalism was uninhibited by defects and privileges, wage rates would rise and there would be more material goods for the majority of man.
Now that I think about it, ancap contains many elements of the early left(hence Rothbard's synthesis of libertarianism being both right and left) particularly its disdain of war/imperialism, because they thought it was just the result of state backed capitalism needing more resources. And many Enlightenment concepts, mostly Smith and Locke.
Since the feudal times, the rich were always the ones with all the land in which the serfs were enslaved to. So it could be said that the early roots of ancap was based on the hatred of the rich. Except they were not naive about putting more power into the state.
I would research about the early mutualists like Proudhoun, Tucker, and Col. Greene. Their main interest was monetary reform, essentially theorizing that interest and usury would become zero if people created their own currency, not monopolized by state capitalist banks. It was defunct because they still believed in labor value instead of marginal utility, but was a pre-runner to free market money, I would presume. Modern Austrian economics built on these traditions, and of disdain for the state. And after Mises and most of the 20th century disasters of statism, people learned that socialism would fail, including minarchism. So why not take the duties of the imaginary social contract state (which was to protect property) and turn them over to the most efficient form of production and wealth, the free market.
Many other elements are also included, but this is just some of my thoughts.
*What I mean by socialist is anyone wanting to change mid 19th century state capitalism or the "labor problem".
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Well I am arguing in my research right now that anarcho-capitalism really came from the "betrayel of the right". Murray Rothbard heavily criticizes that rights reliance on government especially its foreign policy. I think it actually led him to have a further and further distrust of government.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap