A Redefinition of Terms in the Anarcho-Capitalist Paradigm

Reply

AJ Posted: Tue, Jun 16 2009 4:33 PM

rated by 0 users

Socialism, Communism, Minarchism, Statism, Anarcho-Capitalism. To line up such words side-by-side is to imply a fallacy. To quote the eminent scholar Cookie Monster,

"One of these things is not like the other things. One of these things just doesn't belong."

That's easy, you may say. It's obvious that the first four advocate a state power and the fifth advocates no state power.

But there is another difference that, while surely understood, the conventional use of terms does not respect: All forms of statism seek to decree something. Anarcho-capitalism, despite being an "-ism," seeks to decree nothing.

Therefore, all development of the AnCap theory, all discussion, is based around a fundamentally different question than the discussions of any statist political theory. The question statists aim to resolve is

"How should we make things be? (using the monopoly power of the state to "ordain and establish")

But the question Anarcho-capitalists aim to resolve is

"How will things be?" (as a result of individuals acting in the absence of a state monopoly on force)

For instance, Socialists argue that the state should tax the rich to benefit the poor, but AnCaps argue that in a state-less society people will not categorically agree to be taxed, that in a truly free society a different system will most likely emerge organically on the free market. AnCaps then give interesting theories as to what systems might come up on the free market to help the poor, but naturally there is no acter designated to decree such systems.

This may seem a trivial and obvious distinction, but I aim to show that there is something insidious going on here, severely undermining the argument for Anarcho-capitalism.

To state the problem directly, AnCap is an entirely new paradigm, fully divorced from and incompatible with the paternalistic* superstition that has fooled so many generations into thinking that the State is beneficial or necessary. Yet we persist in using the terms that originated in, and were born out of, the old statist paradigm.

*Perhaps the paternalistic superstition came about via theism (rule by God as paternalistic overseer) --> monarchy (rule by the King as paternalistic overseer (initially ordained by God)) --> state (rule by elites legitimatized by voting and/or (pseudo-)scientific authority (the new "God")).

In AnCap discussion, these terms are obsolete and muddy the waters immeasurably. They keep us semantically locked in the old paradigm, constantly having to fight off the inconveniences and ambiguities of discussing something simple using needlessly complex and inherently pro-state terms. I contend that, given what's at stake, we do not have that luxury.

Take the word "state"* for example. In the AnCap context, where private firms are likely to provide all security and adjudication, we recognize (correct me if I'm wrong) that if any firm were somehow allowed to grow large enough - however unlikely that may be - the firm would become a de facto "state." Along the power continuum, it's clear enough that the more power the firm gains, the more its incentives shift from offering its services toward forcing its services (and forcing payment, called "taxes" in the old paradigm).

*Casting aside for a moment the debate in the other thread about state vs. government

Why use the word "state" at all, when we really mean "monopoly (security and adjudication) firm"? Sure, "state" is more succinct, but I contend it's far less elucidating. We can nitpick and say that "state" means it has legitimacy in the eyes of the people, but inevitably a monopoly firm tries to - and often achieves - the same aim. Plus, many current "states" are not seen as legitimate, even in the eyes of the majority.

And look how much easier it is to argue using the concept of "monopoly" rather than that of "state." For instance, which is more illuminating?

"Minarchists want to limit state power to those things for which it is absolutely necessary."

Vs.

"Minarchists want to limit monopoly power to those things for which it is absolutely necessary."

The first seems reasonable, the second seems almost hilariously irrational. And yet neither tell a lie. It's simply that words like "state" were formed to be convenient and elucidating within a context of superstitious belief in the need for a government.

Should it surprise us that these terms keep coming back to bite us? All the more pernicious they are for the fact that they go unnoticed. This is especially ironic given how just about every word the government uses is some kind of semantic contortion: "welfare," "enhanced interrogation," "USA PATRIOT* Act."

*Short for, get this,  "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"

Next on the list is "private" vs. "public." The whole dichotomy again implies a fallacious premise, that there is a set of people (the state) that works for the good of the general population, rather than being interested only in their "private" gain. But in fact, the government is just as "private" as any private company, with one exception: it claims that it's not (and people believe it). Let's take up minarchy again:

"Minarchists want to limit public power to those things for which it is absolutely necessary. Anarcho-capitalists would like these dangerous functions to be in private hands."

Vs.

"Minarchists want to limit monopoly power to those things for which it is absolutely necessary. Anarcho-capitalists would prefer not to enforce a monopoly on these dangerous functions at all."

Better?

This brings me to the term "Anarcho-capitalism" itself.

First of all, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term "capitalism" was coined by Marx to distinguish from the means of production being publicly vs. privately owned (or rather, monopolistically vs. non-monopolistically owned). Sure, capital will be "privately" owned as a result of having free markets, but that's a consequence of freedom of exchange, rather than the essence. It's bad enough that the enemies of free markets get to call freedom an "-ism" without sounding obviously ridiculous, but why ought we perpetuate such loaded terminology among ourselves?

That last sentence also applies, mutatis mutandis, to "anarchism." Although the dictionary definition of an "-ism" doesn't necessitate coercion, the categorization of anarchism as an "-ism" makes it sound like it would be imposed on everyone, just like all other political schemes. This I see as heavily disadvantageous and confusing from an outsider's perspective.

To be accurate, wouldn't we have to concede that Anarcho-capitalism is simply a theory (however probable it may be) about what would happen if there were no "state" monopoly on power? Aren't the non-aggression principle and natural rights simply what we theorize (however correctly) that people would naturally adopt if there were no monopoly (maybe with the help of a little education)?

If so, instead of Anarcho-capitalism, how about "anti-monopolism"? Still an "-ism" but I don't see a way around that, and even in a libertarian society I assume imposing coercion would be acceptable as an act of self-defense if it were necessary to remove a monopoly on force.

"Anti-monopolism" is something just about any layperson can agree with prima facie, and all the arguments flow naturally from there with a minimum of confusion. Any time the person brings up a statist-loaded term, I suggest bringing it back to the reality of monopoly. Keep it simple - that's the way to win debates.

Take even a difficult topic like the environment.

Statist: "But without the EPA, oil companies will pollute worse and there'll be more oil spills, and...and..."

AJ: "Why does the EPA exist?"

Statist: "Because people care about the environment, and demanded that government do something."

AJ: "...with their tax dollars."

Statist: "Yes, because most people are willing to pay for such an important cause."

AJ: "Good point, Statist. I totally agree. Since so many people are willing to pay for that service, if there were no EPA, some companies would want to provide that service to get a share of the money."

Statist: "Yeah, good thing we have the EPA."

AJ: "Yeah, good thing we have a monopoly on environmental protection services."

This approach at least seems to set the discussion on a good footing, rather than letting loaded terms slip in through the backdoor. The Statist is from thereon on the defensive, as they should be. The burden of proof is on them to justify monopoly, as it should be. That is the central issue, and then as a bonus there's the inefficiency of government - which just about everyone acknowledges - to throw out there as an ancillary point.

In short, I think it is monopoly that AnCaps really oppose, and from that naturally falls all the other things we theorize about (NAP, natural rights, etc.) - and if those things do not come naturally, then our theories (of what practices will actually be adopted) are, by definition, wrong*.

*Education and setting good examples that people want to imitate can of course change that outcome

There's a host of other questionable terms I believe would benefit from re-examination, but I don't want to belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that I think it's time for AnCap to come into its own, to stop being fettered by residual paternal-monopolistic verbiage, and to reach out to the people and prove itself by shining the light of reason on the superstitious pro-state notions of the past.

Reply

Conza88 replied on Tue, Jun 16 2009 10:45 PM

rated by 0 users

Great post! It has a lot to do with tactics & strategy.

I make the point of rejecting the false left / right paradigm. (The statist paradigm which keeps everyone in a box) Libertarianism is neither left or right. And you gain a lot of credibility by rejecting both, the average person - as far as I am aware - is in the middle, because they naturally think - communism failed, but unregulated capitalism is also dangerous, so I am an "independent" in the "middle", not realising they are still a socialist and there is an actual alternative to it all.

As long as this false paradigm persists I don't think we'll see Liberty. I also make the point, depending on the recipient, of not associating myself with defunct labels. 'Anarchism' is a general peeve. Why associate yourself with traditional socialists, who break the non aggression axiom (principle) and violate private property by rioting in the streets. Anarchism has been tarnished by state propaganda, but also by those calling themselves anarchists (generally vandarchists). Instead, I'll use non-archist, voluntaryist or ancap  - and I now like the anti-monopolist bent.

Other suggestions; 'against the redistribution of wealth' (to minarchists, conservatives etc.) - Taxation is a redistribution of wealth.

Another example that irks me, and shows the (left wing socialists) ability with words - "progressives". Nothing they support has anything to do with progress. They are "regressives".

I think Libertarians / free marketers / ancaps etc. need to pay more attention to the words we use and to avoid falling into the traps. As it is, "we" focus on the arguments, but too "our" detriment - not the best ways of marketing of them.

Reply

E. R. Olovetto replied on Thu, Jun 18 2009 3:03 PM

rated by 0 users

I think this is pretty good what you two wrote. I am tired and haven't been reading economics much recently so let me get my potentially dumb thing to say out of the way first:

Is "monopoly" always bad? I thought there is no issue for natural monopolies, or those not aided by aggression.

I guess this sort of disarms the "evil monopolistic capitalist" thing when you point out that stuff like letter carrying is monopoly by decree. Of course you will get the free rider complaints and worries that everyone will die of thirst with no "public" water. So, it should be a noble pursuit to keep better outlining how and why market results will be better.

Anyhow, Block has a couple good articles about language then there is a more detailed one on "social justice":

http://mises.org/story/406

http://mises.org/story/385

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block37.html

I know there is some huge thread on what AnCaps should call themselves, but I haven't read it. I don't yet understand quite what exactly the difference with voluntarism is. It seems like it is just one of strategy, to not want to use political processes for reform at all. At least, I had read one voluntarist piece that excoriated Rothbard's strategy, calling his approach Leninist. I think voluntarist definitely sounds better.

Reply

AJ replied on Tue, Jun 23 2009 1:25 AM

rated by 0 users

Conza88:

I make the point of rejecting the false left / right paradigm. (The statist paradigm which keeps everyone in a box) Libertarianism is neither left or right. And you gain a lot of credibility by rejecting both, the average person - as far as I am aware - is in the middle, because they naturally think - communism failed, but unregulated capitalism is also dangerous, so I am an "independent" in the "middle", not realising they are still a socialist and there is an actual alternative to it all.

The left-right paradigm always annoyed me, but it's been so hard to wrench people out of it that I'm beginning to wonder if it mightn't be more efficient to redefine "left" as love-based and "right" as hate-based, the two being sides of the same coin. In other words, Socialists are on the left because they are ostensibly motivated by love, but of course are like some kind of Mother Teresa-turned-Rambo because they must use violence to force charity. Under this definition, small government conservativism wouldn't be on the right, because it is not hate-based (hate-based would be the Nazis, for example). Then we could call ourselves Centrists because we do not advocate legislated love (wealth redistribution), nor legislated hate (Naziism), but rather the rule of natural law - which protects only the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property.