Words and labels are important in politics, and I believe the terms "anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist" are the most misleading, inappopriate words to describe what total emancipation from the government produces. As studies into framing have shown, if we start with a term that is immediately associated with something bad, we are not going to get far into the debate.
While anarchists in the 19th century sense desired the total abolition of laws protecting private property; we desire the very opposite. To frame ourselves as anarchists is therefore not very sensible. From an etymological point of view, an-archon means that there is no rule, while mono-archon means that there is a single ruler. The political end of liberty is to abolish the monopoly on the production of law and order, therefore the correct word should be pluri-archon or multi-archon.
What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism.
This affects the political strategy that we ought to employ as well. For example, I cannot see Ron Paul proposing to abolish the government of the United States. However I can see him campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would allow competition in the provision of security and justice.
While we're at it we should abolish the word libertarian as well. It was a codename for anarchist when anarchists were banned in France, and it's just plain ugly in its english aspect.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Well unfortunately the term anarchism has been so denigrated and misunderstood that it is indeed ridiculously hard to communicate to people about it. I also don't like the term anarcho-capitalism because the word capitalism has also been denigrated to the point of being an anti-concept, and it has negative connotations for most people these days. I've distanced myself from the word capitalism because even in its original context it does not refer to a free market, it refers to the mercantalism and class systems of the 18th and 19th centuries. I always make a sharp distinction between a free market and "state-capitalism" when debating with the socialistically inclined.
Actually we do favor the total abolition of coercive laws protecting unjust property titles. Rothbard goes through many pains to make a distinction between merely protecting existing property classes and property titles and protecting property rights in "The Ethics of Liberty". The utilitarians are fallicious in assuming that existing property arrangements are legitimate per se. By making this assumption, they end up as defenders of the status quo and a quasi-fuedalistic or even quasi-fascistic regime. A consistant application of the Rothbardian-style theory of legitimacy in property titles would in some ways lead to a fairly drastic change in existing arrangements if it was enforced.
I also don't believe that this system known as anarcho-capitalism keeps rulers at all. A ruler is inherently coercive, imposed from above. I'd make a distinction between a ruler and a leader. A leader is chosen or consented to. A ruler is not, a ruler illegitimately lays claim to control others. In this spirit, I proudly declare what is called "anarcho-capitalism" to be precisely a system without rulers. There is noone who can legitimately lay claim on your life without your consent. You own yourself by default, noone else does. This is inalienable. You are of course free to rent yourself out to others (hence, wage labor) and to leaders that you consent to, but this in no way implies the existance of "rulers".
I do agree that market anarchism or free market anarchism (the terms I prefer) has pluralist implications, in that free association and free competition inherently implies the peaceful co-existance of multiple social and economic arrangements. I even will support people's freedom to go form a commune, or go live as primitivists, so long as I'm not forced into it myself. This, however, does not imply "multiple rulers" to me at all. Only a pluralistic society in which people are free to choose who to associate with and who to be lead by. This creates an extremely decentralized and multi-centered type of social and economic and legal order indeed.
So apparently we have some sharp disagreements as to what this philosophy implies, at least terminologically speaking. Perhaps our disagreement is merely semantic and etymological. I do not shy away from the idea of opposing rulers and opposing existing property arrangements.
Yes, I think packaging the words 'anarchy' and 'capitalism' together isn't exactly the wisest of marketting ideas (although market anarchism doesn't pose as much of a problem.) I like the terms 'polycentric order', catallarchy (why not?), 'natural order', private law society etc. better.
Also agree on libertarian, I detest the word. Classical liberal is better, but by no means a perfect substitute; it doesn't even connote the same thing.
I kind of like anarcho-capitalism.
I'm not too worried about the marketing though. We aren't in the business of convincing people that anarchy is good, we are in the business of convincing people that the State is evil. In order for anarchy to happen people must consciously reject the state.
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
I wrote a relatively lengthy response to this and it said "post pending moderation". I hope my efforts were not wasted.
Good idea. If a few people start using "multiarcho-capitalism" in conversations, lectures, scholarly and popular publications, then people will be intrigued. I think more people might take these ideas seriously if they could approach them without the negative associations and preconceptions they attach to libertarianism and the like. But on the other hand, using unfamiliar terms can cause confusion and make it seem like a splinter group, hence detracting from support for anarcho-capitalism, so there's probably a tradeoff and you have to think carefully about your audience.
On a similar note I suggest that it is best to think of oneself as an Austrian (Misesian, praxeologist etc.) first, rather than a liberal or capitalist. If people think Austrian economics is defined by the political beliefs of its adherents, they will not take it seriously. Once they realise it rest on some serious arguments they will have to critique or accept them. Also, not all Austrians (defined narrowly to include only the praxeological variety) are anarchists. I do not know the positions of all of these Austrians, but I think a principled scepticism about anarchy is possible (Mises certainly thought so).
P.S. Does anyone know if Ron Paul would support anarchy in theory? (sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread)
Brainpolice:I wrote a relatively lengthy response to this and it said "post pending moderation". I hope my efforts were not wasted.
I've had that happen several times. Must be phrases trigger it? They always have been approved.
Stranger: Words and labels are important in politics, and I believe the terms "anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist" are the most misleading, inappopriate words to describe what total emancipation from the government produces. As studies into framing have shown, if we start with a term that is immediately associated with something bad, we are not going to get far into the debate. While anarchists in the 19th century sense desired the total abolition of laws protecting private property; we desire the very opposite. To frame ourselves as anarchists is therefore not very sensible. From an etymological point of view, an-archon means that there is no rule, while mono-archon means that there is a single ruler. The political end of liberty is to abolish the monopoly on the production of law and order, therefore the correct word should be pluri-archon or multi-archon. What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism. This affects the political strategy that we ought to employ as well. For example, I cannot see Ron Paul proposing to abolish the government of the United States. However I can see him campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would allow competition in the provision of security and justice. While we're at it we should abolish the word libertarian as well. It was a codename for anarchist when anarchists were banned in France, and it's just plain ugly in its english aspect.
I also believe that the term anarcho-capitalist is a bad one and is misleading. Indeed, the word anarchism is one of the most denigrated and misunderstood words out there. The same is true of the term capitalism, which has negative connotations for most people and has become an anti-concept in my opinion. Indeed, I do not even believe that the word capitalism in its original context refers to a free market, but rather the mercantalism and class systems of the 18th and 19th centuries, and the process that lead to them. When debating, particularly with the socialistically inclined, I always make a sharp distinction between a free market and "state-capitalism".
I disagree with your statements about private property. This philosophy does oppose protection of illegitimate property titles and illegitimate property arrangements. In "The Ethics of Liberty", Murray Rothbard painstakingly goes through much effort to make a distinction between property rights and existing property titles. Utilitarians often make the mistake of assuming that existing property arrangements are legitimate per se, and consequentially end up defending the status quo and a sort of neo-fuedalism. But a consistant application of the Rothbard-style theory of legitimacy in property titles would render a considerable chunk of it null and void.
I also disagree with you about rulers. Market anarchism or free market anarchism (the terms that I prefer to "anarcho-capitalism") does oppose the existance of rulers. I make a distinction between a leader and a ruler. A ruler is imposed from above, they illegitimately lay claim on your life. Since we presumably believe in absolute self-ownership, noone else can legitimately lay claim on your life against your will. This is inalienable. Of course, you are free to rent yourself out to others (hence, wage labor), but this in no way implies the existance of rulers. You are free to choose leaders for yourself, but you are not free to choose leaders for others against their consent. And you have no legitimate claim over anyone else's life against their consent.
You are correct that this philosophy inherently has pluralist implications in that free association and free competition implies the co-existance of multiple social, economic and legal arrangements. It is an extremely decentralized and multi-centered order. This even extends to one's liberty to go form a commune or live as a primitivist so long as they do not force me into it. So in a sense I think that market anarchism is the epitome of "anarchism without adjectives". But it in no way implies "multiple rulers". Free association implies no rulers and multiple voluntary arrangements. Noone forces anyone to associate with anyone else. A ruler, by definition, violates the principle of free association, even if indirectly.
So apparently either we sharply disagree about what this philosophy implies, or our disagreements are essentially semantical and etymological. I do not shy away from the idea of opposing rulers and currently existing property arrangements.
Wowzers. Both posts just magically popped up. I'm assuming the mods took care of it. Thankyou mods! Although now I have a double post, although the 2nd one was my best attempt to reproduce the original, with some modifcations. I guess patience is a virtue that I do not possess! :P
Multiarcho-capitalism is as ugly as a word can get (polyarcho- would be more apposite.) Polycentric capitalism at least sounds somewhat better. Like I said, catallarchy works just fine. IMO, it is one of the most appropriate words out there. Just needs some mild re-definition. Catallactics is a far better word than 'economics' even, and catallarchy is perfect to designate an order based on voluntary exchanges.
I agree with BBB.
If it's possible to have societies with stable, honest governments in anarchy, I don't see what the basis is for abolishing the ones we have.
Instead of destroying the government, then petititioning all anarchists to let you form one (how exactly would this work? a majority vote?), why not simply petition the government that exists now? After all, the same amount of force necessary to remove government can equally be used to reform government.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Nathyn:If it's possible to have societies with stable, honest governments in anarchy, I don't see what the basis is for abolishing the ones we have.Instead of destroying the government, then petititioning all anarchists to let you form one (how exactly would this work? a majority vote?), why not simply petition the government that exists now? After all, the same amount of force necessary to remove government can equally be used to reform government.
Government is a plague, a disease, a wild an untamed beast that can neither be fixed, reformed, or used for any means of good.
Why not "reform" because if you hadn't noticed, it has never worked. No, there can be no peace with governments. How could there be when they refuse to treat you like a man?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
I agree with Niccolo.
Niccolò: Nathyn:If it's possible to have societies with stable, honest governments in anarchy, I don't see what the basis is for abolishing the ones we have.Instead of destroying the government, then petititioning all anarchists to let you form one (how exactly would this work? a majority vote?), why not simply petition the government that exists now? After all, the same amount of force necessary to remove government can equally be used to reform government. Government is a plague, a disease, a wild an untamed beast that can neither be fixed, reformed, or used for any means of good. Why not "reform" because if you hadn't noticed, it has never worked. No, there can be no peace with governments. How could there be when they refuse to treat you like a man?
That's beside the point.
If it is true that government is a plague, exactly why would you propose allowing it to be re-introduced in Anarchy? You wouldn't, right?
Also, it's patently obvious that some governments are better than others. In America, you have the freedom to call your governments fascist. While, in many other countries, if you criticize the government, they'll murder you.
You can't honestly believe that Germany today is as bad as Nazi Germany.
The problem with catallarchy is that it doesn't evoke anything, so it enters the debate with no frame. Plurarchy on the other hand, hijacks nicely the contemporary political fad of pluralism.
I still take issue with characterizing this philosophy as pro-archy (ruler) in any sense. I've seen the term polyarchy thrown around but even that term I don't think fits. I have no problem with seeing a society based on the principle of the non-initiation of aggression (and therefore free association) as being "without rulers", since I define a ruler in a way that inevitably involves some kind of forced association. I see a free market (especially and most importantly in the case of land) as being exactly what it means to be without rulers, for there is no unjust claim over someone else's legitimately aquired property involved.
I think what we ought to do is petition the non-propertarian anarchists to get their definitions straight and interpret Proudhon (who they often misinterpret to their own cause's advantage) properly. And petition them to drop the labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value. And to stop denying that the individualists are anarchists. Why overtly shy away from the term anarchism like that and grant the collectivists and syndicalists a monopoly on the term? They've been mischaracterizing us as statists and defenders of the status quo for a long time: why concede to their fallicious arguements?
I prefer abolitionist myself.
Stranger:The problem with catallarchy is that it doesn't evoke anything, so it enters the debate with no frame.
The problem with catallarchy is that it doesn't evoke anything, so it enters the debate with no frame.
Isn't that the point? To use a term that hasn't been turned into an anti-concept?
Brainpolice:I still take issue with characterizing this philosophy as pro-archy (ruler) in any sense. I've seen the term polyarchy thrown around but even that term I don't think fits. I have no problem with seeing a society based on the principle of the non-initiation of aggression (and therefore free association) as being "without rulers", since I define a ruler in a way that inevitably involves some kind of forced association. I see a free market (especially and most importantly in the case of land) as being exactly what it means to be without rulers, for there is no unjust claim over someone else's legitimately aquired property involved.
Polyarchy makes me think of polygamist. The fact of the matter is that people want rulers. They want protection. We cannot sell them personal sovereignty. It frightens them. The only way to ensure their personal liberty is with competing rulers.
So we stole their words and now we're asking them to give up the crazyness? That's not very strategic if you ask me.
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