     3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists place little or no value on "equality"?

   Murray Rothbard argues that "the 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed
   to inequality." [For a New Liberty, p. 47] In contrast, "leftist"
   libertarians oppose inequality because it has harmful effects on
   individual liberty.

   Part of the reason "anarcho"-capitalism places little or no value on
   "equality" derives from their definition of that term. Murray Rothbard
   defines equality as:

     "A and B are 'equal' if they are identical to each other with
     respect to a given attribute... There is one and only one way, then,
     in which any two people can really be 'equal' in the fullest sense:
     they must be identical in all their attributes."

   He then points out the obvious fact that "men are not uniform,. . . .
   the species, mankind, is uniquely characterised by a high degree of
   variety, diversity, differentiation: in short, inequality."
   [Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays, p. 4, p.5]

   In others words, every individual is unique. Something no egalitarian
   has ever denied. On the basis of this amazing insight, he concludes
   that equality is impossible (except "equality of rights") and that the
   attempt to achieve "equality" is a "revolt against nature" -- as if any
   anarchist had ever advocated such a notion of equality as being
   identical!

   And so, because we are all unique, the outcome of our actions will not
   be identical and so social inequality flows from natural differences
   and not due to the economic system we live under. Inequality of
   endowment implies inequality of outcome and so social inequality. As
   individual differences are a fact of nature, attempts to create a
   society based on "equality" (i.e. making everyone identical in terms of
   possessions and so forth) is impossible and "unnatural."

   Before continuing, we must note that Rothbard is destroying language to
   make his point and that he is not the first to abuse language in this
   particular way. In George Orwell's 1984, the expression "all men are
   created equal" could be translated into Newspeak, but it would make as
   much sense as saying "all men have red hair," an obvious falsehood (see
   "The Principles of Newspeak" Appendix). It's nice to know that "Mr.
   Libertarian" is stealing ideas from Big Brother, and for the same
   reason: to make critical thought impossible by restricting the meaning
   of words.

   "Equality," in the context of political discussion, does not mean
   "identical," it usually means equality of rights, respect, worth, power
   and so forth. It does not imply treating everyone identically (for
   example, expecting an eighty year old man to do identical work to an
   eighteen violates treating both with respect as unique individuals).
   For anarchists, as Alexander Berkman writes, "equality does not mean an
   equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of
   identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict
   camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does
   not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do
   the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very
   reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites
   differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true
   equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the
   greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human
   character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity
   results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and
   acting out your individuality means development of natural
   dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will
   do more than liberate man merely from his present political and
   economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to
   a truly human existence." [The ABC of Anarchism, p. 25]

   Thus anarchists reject the Rothbardian-Newspeak definition of equality
   as meaningless within political discussion. No two people are identical
   and so imposing "identical" equality between them would mean treating
   them as unequals, i.e. not having equal worth or giving them equal
   respect as befits them as human beings and fellow unique individuals.

   So what should we make of Rothbard's claim? It is tempting just to
   quote Rousseau when he argued "it is . . . useless to inquire whether
   there is any essential connection between the two inequalities [social
   and natural]; for this would be only asking, in other words, whether
   those who command are necessarily better than those who obey, and if
   strength of body or of mind, wisdom, or virtue are always found in
   particular individuals, in proportion to their power or wealth: a
   question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
   masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
   the truth." [The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 49] But a few more
   points should be raised.

   The uniqueness of individuals has always existed but for the vast
   majority of human history we have lived in very egalitarian societies.
   If social inequality did, indeed, flow from natural inequalities then
   all societies would be marked by it. This is not the case. Indeed,
   taking a relatively recent example, many visitors to the early United
   States noted its egalitarian nature, something that soon changed with
   the rise of wage labour and industrial capitalism (a rise dependent
   upon state action, we must add, -- see section [1]8). This implies that
   the society we live in (its rights framework, the social relationships
   it generates and so forth) has a far more of a decisive impact on
   inequality than individual differences. Thus certain rights frameworks
   will tend to magnify "natural" inequalities (assuming that is the
   source of the initial inequality, rather than, say, violence and
   force). As Noam Chomsky argues:

     "Presumably it is the case that in our 'real world' some combination
     of attributes is conducive to success in responding to 'the demands
     of the economic system' . . . One might suppose that some mixture of
     avarice, selfishness, lack of concern for others, aggressiveness,
     and similar characteristics play a part in getting ahead [in
     capitalism]. . . Whatever the correct collection of attributes may
     be, we may ask what follows from the fact, if it is a fact, that
     some partially inherited combination of attributes tends to material
     success? All that follows . . . is a comment on our particular
     social and economic arrangements . . . The egalitarian might
     responds, in all such cases, that the social order should be changes
     so that the collection of attributes that tends to bring success no
     longer do so . . . " [The Chomsky Reader, p. 190]

   So, perhaps, if we change society then the social inequalities we see
   today would disappear. It is more than probable that natural difference
   has been long ago been replaced with social inequalities, especially
   inequalities of property (which will tend to increase, rather than
   decrease, inequality). And as we argue in section [2]8 these
   inequalities of property were initially the result of force, not
   differences in ability. Thus to claim that social inequality flows from
   natural differences is false as most social inequality has flown from
   violence and force. This initial inequality has been magnified by the
   framework of capitalist property rights and so the inequality within
   capitalism is far more dependent upon, say, the existence of wage
   labour, rather than "natural" differences between individuals.

   If we look at capitalism, we see that in workplaces and across
   industries many, if not most, unique individuals receive identical
   wages for identical work (although this often is not the case for women
   and blacks, who receive less wages than male, white workers).
   Similarly, capitalists have deliberately introduced wage inequalities
   and hierarchies for no other reason that to divide (and so rule) the
   workforce (see section [3]D.10). Thus, if we assume egalitarianism is a
   revolt against nature, then much of capitalist economic life is in such
   a revolt (and when it is not, the "natural" inequalities have been
   imposed artificially by those in power).

   Thus "natural" differences do not necessarily result in inequality as
   such. Given a different social system, "natural" differences would be
   encouraged and celebrated far wider than they are under capitalism
   (where, as we argued in section [4]B.1, hierarchy ensures the crushing
   of individuality rather than its encouragement) without any change in
   social equality. The claim that "natural" differences generates social
   inequalities is question begging in the extreme -- it takes the rights
   framework of society as a given and ignores the initial source of
   inequality in property and power. Indeed, inequality of outcome or
   reward is more likely to be influenced by social conditions rather than
   individual differences (as would be the case in a society based on wage
   labour or other forms of exploitation).

   Another reason for "anarcho"-capitalist lack of concern for equality is
   that they think that "liberty upsets patterns" (see section [5]2.5, for
   example). It is argued that equality can only be maintained by
   restricting individual freedom to make exchanges or by taxation of
   income. However, what this argument fails to acknowledge is that
   inequality also restricts individual freedom (see [6]next section, for
   example) and that the capitalist property rights framework is not the
   only one possible. After all, money is power and inequalities in terms
   of power easily result in restrictions of liberty and the
   transformation of the majority into order takers rather than free
   producers. In other words, once a certain level of inequality is
   reached, property does not promote, but actually conflicts with, the
   ends which render private property legitimate. Moreover, Nozick (in his
   "liberty upsets patterns" argument) "has produced . . . an argument for
   unrestricted private property using unrestricted private property, and
   thus he begs the question he tries to answer." [Andrew Kerhohan,
   "Capitalism and Self-Ownership", from Capitalism, p. 71] For example, a
   worker employed by a capitalist cannot freely exchange the machines or
   raw materials they have been provided with to use but Nozick does not
   class this distribution of "restricted" property rights as infringing
   liberty (nor does he argue that wage slavery itself restricts freedom,
   of course).

   So in response to the claim that equality could only be maintained by
   continuously interfering with people's lives, anarchists would say that
   the inequalities produced by capitalist property rights also involve
   extensive and continuous interference with people's lives. After all,
   as Bob Black notes "[y]our foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else
   orders in a week than the police do in a decade" nevermind the other
   effects of inequality such as stress, ill health and so on [Libertarian
   as Conservative]. Thus claims that equality involves infringing liberty
   ignores the fact that inequality also infringes liberty. A
   reorganisation of society could effectively minimise inequalities by
   eliminating the major source of such inequalities (wage labour) by
   self-management (see section [7]I.5.12 for a discussion of
   "capitalistic acts" within an anarchist society). We have no desire to
   restrict free exchanges (after all, most anarchists desire to see the
   "gift economy" become a reality sooner or later) but we argue that free
   exchanges need not involve the unrestricted property rights Nozick
   assumes. As we argue in sections [8]2 and [9]3.1, inequality can easily
   led to the situation where self-ownership is used to justify its own
   negation and so unrestricted property rights may undermine the
   meaningful self-determination (what anarchists would usually call
   "freedom" rather than self-ownership) which many people intuitively
   understand by the term "self-ownership".

   Thus, for anarchists, the "anarcho"-capitalist opposition to equality
   misses the point and is extremely question begging. Anarchists do not
   desire to make humanity "identical" (which would be impossible and a
   total denial of liberty and equality) but to make the social
   relationships between individuals equal in power. In other words, they
   desire a situation where people interact together without
   institutionalised power or hierarchy and are influenced by each other
   "naturally," in proportion to how the (individual) differences between
   (social) equals are applicable in a given context. To quote Michael
   Bakunin, "[t]he greatest intelligence would not be equal to a
   comprehension of the whole. Thence results. . . the necessity of the
   division and association of labour. I receive and I give -- such is
   human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there
   is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual,
   temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." [God
   and the State, p. 33]

   Such an environment can only exist within self-managed associations,
   for capitalism (i.e. wage labour) creates very specific relations and
   institutions of authority. It is for this reason anarchists are
   socialists (i.e. opposed to wage labour, the existence of a proletariat
   or working class). In other words, anarchists support equality
   precisely because we recognise that everyone is unique. If we are
   serious about "equality of rights" or "equal freedom" then conditions
   must be such that people can enjoy these rights and liberties. If we
   assume the right to develop one's capacities to the fullest, for
   example, then inequality of resources and so power within society
   destroys that right simply because people do not have the means to
   freely exercise their capacities (they are subject to the authority of
   the boss, for example, during work hours).

   So, in direct contrast to anarchism, right-Libertarianism is
   unconcerned about any form of equality except "equality of rights".
   This blinds them to the realities of life; in particular, the impact of
   economic and social power on individuals within society and the social
   relationships of domination they create. Individuals may be "equal"
   before the law and in rights, but they may not be free due to the
   influence of social inequality, the relationships it creates and how it
   affects the law and the ability of the oppressed to use it. Because of
   this, all anarchists insist that equality is essential for freedom,
   including those in the Individualist Anarchist tradition the
   "anarcho"-capitalist tries to co-opt -- "Spooner and Godwin insist that
   inequality corrupts freedom. Their anarchism is directed as much
   against inequality as against tyranny" and "[w]hile sympathetic to
   Spooner's individualist anarchism, they [Rothbard and David Friedman]
   fail to notice or conveniently overlook its egalitarian implications."
   [Stephen L. Newman, Liberalism at Wit's End, p. 74, p. 76]

   Why equality is important is discussed more fully in the [10]next
   section. Here we just stress that without social equality, individual
   freedom is so restricted that it becomes a mockery (essentially
   limiting freedom of the majority to choosing which employer will govern
   them rather than being free within and outside work).

   Of course, by defining "equality" in such a restrictive manner,
   Rothbard's own ideology is proved to be nonsense. As L.A. Rollins
   notes, "Libertarianism, the advocacy of 'free society' in which people
   enjoy 'equal freedom' and 'equal rights,' is actually a specific form
   of egalitarianism. As such, Libertarianism itself is a revolt against
   nature. If people, by their very biological nature, are unequal in all
   the attributes necessary to achieving, and preserving 'freedom' and
   'rights'. . . then there is no way that people can enjoy 'equal
   freedom' or 'equal rights'. If a free society is conceived as a society
   of 'equal freedom,' then there ain't no such thing as 'a free
   society'." [The Myth of Natural Law, p. 36]

   Under capitalism, freedom is a commodity like everything else. The more
   money you have, the greater your freedom. "Equal" freedom, in the
   Newspeak-Rothbardian sense, cannot exist! As for "equality before the
   law", its clear that such a hope is always dashed against the rocks of
   wealth and market power (see [11]next section for more on this). As far
   as rights go, of course, both the rich and the poor have an "equal
   right" to sleep under a bridge (assuming the bridge's owner agrees of
   course!); but the owner of the bridge and the homeless have different
   rights, and so they cannot be said to have "equal rights" in the
   Newspeak-Rothbardian sense either. Needless to say, poor and rich will
   not "equally" use the "right" to sleep under a bridge, either.

   Bob Black observes in The Libertarian as Conservative that "[t]he time
   of your life is the one commodity you can sell but never buy back.
   Murray Rothbard thinks egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, but
   his day is 24 hours long, just like everybody else's."

   By twisting the language of political debate, the vast differences in
   power in capitalist society can be "blamed" not on an unjust and
   authoritarian system but on "biology" (we are all unique individuals,
   after all). Unlike genes (although biotechnology corporations are
   working on this, too!), human society can be changed, by the
   individuals who comprise it, to reflect the basic features we all share
   in common -- our humanity, our ability to think and feel, and our need
   for freedom.

3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?

   Simply because a disregard for equality soon ends with liberty for the
   majority being negated in many important ways. Most
   "anarcho"-capitalists and right-Libertarians deny (or at best ignore)
   market power. Rothbard, for example, claims that economic power does
   not exist; what people call "economic power" is "simply the right under
   freedom to refuse to make an exchange" [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 222]
   and so the concept is meaningless.

   However, the fact is that there are substantial power centres in
   society (and so are the source of hierarchical power and authoritarian
   social relations) which are not the state. The central fallacy of
   "anarcho"-capitalism is the (unstated) assumption that the various
   actors within an economy have relatively equal power. This assumption
   has been noted by many readers of their works. For example, Peter
   Marshall notes that "'anarcho-capitalists' like Murray Rothbard assume
   individuals would have equal bargaining power in a [capitalist]
   market-based society" [Demanding the Impossible, p. 46] George Walford
   also makes this clear in his comments on David Friedman's The Machinery
   of Freedom:

     "The private ownership envisages by the anarcho-capitalists would be
     very different from that which we know. It is hardly going too far
     to say that while the one is nasty, the other would be nice. In
     anarcho-capitalism there would be no National Insurance, no Social
     Security, no National Health Service and not even anything
     corresponding to the Poor Laws; there would be no public safety-nets
     at all. It would be a rigorously competitive society: work, beg or
     die. But as one reads on, learning that each individual would have
     to buy, personally, all goods and services needed, not only food,
     clothing and shelter but also education, medicine, sanitation,
     justice, police, all forms of security and insurance, even
     permission to use the streets (for these also would be privately
     owned), as one reads about all this a curious feature emerges:
     everybody always has enough money to buy all these things.

     "There are no public casual wards or hospitals or hospices, but
     neither is there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public
     educational system but no uneducated children, no public police
     service but nobody unable to buy the services of an efficient
     security firm, no public law but nobody unable to buy the use of a
     private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy much more
     than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over
     others.

     "No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it
     for granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no
     machinery for restraining competition (for this would need to
     exercise authority over the competitors and it is an anarcho-
     capitalist society) competition would not be carried to the point
     where anybody actually suffered from it. While proclaiming their
     system to be a competitive one, in which private interest rules
     unchecked, they show it operating as a co-operative one, in which no
     person or group profits at the cost of another."
     [On the Capitalist Anarchists]

   This assumption of (relative) equality comes to the fore in Murray
   Rothbard's "Homesteading" concept of property (discussed in section
   [12]4.1). "Homesteading" paints a picture of individuals and families
   doing into the wilderness to make a home for themselves, fighting
   against the elements and so forth. It does not invoke the idea of
   transnational corporations employing tens of thousands of people or a
   population without land, resources and selling their labour to others.
   Indeed, Rothbard argues that economic power does not exist (at least
   under capitalism; as we saw in section [13]2.1 he does make -- highly
   illogical -- exceptions). Similarly, David Friedman's example of a
   pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty "defence" firm coming to an
   agreement (see section [14]6.3) assumes that the firms have equal
   bargaining powers and resources -- if not, then the bargaining process
   would be very one-sided and the smaller company would think twice
   before taking on the larger one in battle (the likely outcome if they
   cannot come to an agreement on this issue) and so compromise.

   However, the right-libertarian denial of market power is unsurprising.
   The necessity, not the redundancy, of equality is required if the
   inherent problems of contract are not to become too obvious. If some
   individuals are assumed to have significantly more power than others,
   and if they are always self-interested, then a contract that creates
   equal partners is impossible -- the pact will establish an association
   of masters and servants. Needless to say, the strong will present the
   contract as being to the advantage of both: the strong no longer have
   to labour (and become rich, i.e. even stronger) and the weak receive an
   income and so do not starve.

   If freedom is considered as a function of ownership then it is very
   clear that individuals lacking property (outside their own body, of
   course) loses effective control over their own person and labour (which
   was, lets not forget, the basis of their equal natural rights). When
   ones bargaining power is weak (which is typically the case in the
   labour market) exchanges tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and
   power over time rather than working towards an equalisation.

   In other words, "contract" need not replace power if the bargaining
   position and wealth of the would-be contractors are not equal (for, if
   the bargainers had equal power it is doubtful they would agree to sell
   control of their liberty/time to another). This means that "power" and
   "market" are not antithetical terms. While, in an abstract sense, all
   market relations are voluntary in practice this is not the case within
   a capitalist market. For example, a large company has a comparative
   advantage over small ones and communities which will definitely shape
   the outcome of any contract. For example, a large company or rich
   person will have access to more funds and so stretch out litigations
   and strikes until their opponents resources are exhausted. Or, if a
   local company is polluting the environment, the local community may put
   up with the damage caused out of fear that the industry (which it
   depends upon) would relocate to another area. If members of the
   community did sue, then the company would be merely exercising its
   property rights when it threatened to move to another location. In such
   circumstances, the community would "freely" consent to its conditions
   or face massive economic and social disruption. And, similarly, "the
   landlords' agents who threaten to discharge agricultural workers and
   tenants who failed to vote the reactionary ticket" in the 1936 Spanish
   election were just exercising their legitimate property rights when
   they threatened working people and their families with economic
   uncertainty and distress. [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p.
   260]

   If we take the labour market, it is clear that the "buyers" and
   "sellers" of labour power are rarely on an equal footing (if they were,
   then capitalism would soon go into crisis -- see section [15]10.2). In
   fact, competition "in labour markets is typically skewed in favour of
   employers: it is a buyer's market. And in a buyer's, it is the sellers
   who compromise." [Juliet B. Schor, The Overworked American, p. 129]
   Thus the ability to refuse an exchange weights most heavily on one
   class than another and so ensures that "free exchange" works to ensure
   the domination (and so exploitation) of one party by the other.

   Inequality in the market ensures that the decisions of the majority of
   within it are shaped in accordance with that needs of the powerful, not
   the needs of all. It was for this reason that the Individual Anarchist
   J.K. Ingalls opposed Henry George's proposal of nationalising the land.
   Ingalls was well aware that the rich could outbid the poor for leases
   on land and so the dispossession of the working classes would continue.

   The market, therefore, does not end power or unfreedom -- they are
   still there, but in different forms. And for an exchange to be truly
   voluntary, both parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or
   influence its terms. Unfortunately, these conditions are rarely meet on
   the labour market or within the capitalist market in general. Thus
   Rothbard's argument that economic power does not exist fails to
   acknowledge that the rich can out-bid the poor for resources and that a
   corporation generally has greater ability to refuse a contract (with an
   individual, union or community) than vice versa (and that the impact of
   such a refusal is such that it will encourage the others involved to
   "compromise" far sooner). And in such circumstances, formally free
   individuals will have to "consent" to be unfree in order to survive.

   As Max Stirner pointed out in the 1840s, free competition "is not
   'free,' because I lack the things for competition." [The Ego and Its
   Own, p. 262] Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of "things") we
   find that "[u]nder the regime of the commonality the labourers always
   fall into the hands of the possessors . . . of the capitalists,
   therefore. The labourer cannot realise on his labour to the extent of
   the value that it has for the customer." [Op. Cit., p. 115] Its
   interesting to note that even Stirner recognises that capitalism
   results in exploitation. And we may add that value the labourer does
   not "realise" goes into the hands of the capitalists, who invest it in
   more "things" and which consolidates and increases their advantage in
   "free" competition.

   To quote Stephan L. Newman:

     "Another disquieting aspect of the libertarians' refusal to
     acknowledge power in the market is their failure to confront the
     tension between freedom and autonomy. . . Wage labour under
     capitalism is, of course, formally free labour. No one is forced to
     work at gun point. Economic circumstance, however, often has the
     effect of force; it compels the relatively poor to accept work under
     conditions dictated by owners and managers. The individual worker
     retains freedom [i.e. negative liberty] but loses autonomy [positive
     liberty]." [Liberalism at Wit's End, pp. 122-123]

   (As an aside, we should point out that the full Stirner quote cited
   above is "[u]nder the regime of the commonality the labourers always
   fall into the hands of the possessors, of those who have at their
   disposal some bit of the state domains (and everything possessible in
   State domain belongs to the State and is only a fief of the
   individual), especially money and land; of the capitalists, therefore.
   The labourer cannot realise on his labour to the extent of the value
   that it has for the customer."

   It could be argued that we misrepresenting Stirner by truncating the
   quote, but we feel that such a claim this is incorrect. Its clear from
   his book that Stirner is considering the "minimal" state ("The State is
   a - commoners' State . . . It protects man . . .according to whether
   the rights entrusted to him by the State are enjoyed and managed in
   accordance with the will, that is, laws, of the State." The State
   "looks on indifferently as one grows poor and the other rich, unruffled
   by this alternation. As individuals they are really equal before its
   face." [Op. Cit., p. 115, p. 252]). As "anarcho"-capitalists consider
   their system to be one of rights and laws (particularly property
   rights), we feel that its fair to generalise Stirner's comments into
   capitalism as such as opposed to "minimum state" capitalism. If we
   replace "State" by "libertarian law code" you will see what we mean. We
   have included this aside before any right-libertarians claim that we
   are misrepresenting Stirner' argument.)

   If we consider "equality before the law" it is obvious that this also
   has limitations in an (materially) unequal society. Brian Morris notes
   that for Ayn Rand, "[u]nder capitalism . . . politics (state) and
   economics (capitalism) are separated . . . This, of course, is pure
   ideology, for Rand's justification of the state is that it 'protects'
   private property, that is, it supports and upholds the economic power
   of capitalists by coercive means." [Ecology & Anarchism, p. 189] The
   same can be said of "anarcho"-capitalism and its "protection agencies"
   and "general libertarian law code." If within a society a few own all
   the resources and the majority are dispossessed, then any law code
   which protects private property automatically empowers the owning
   class. Workers will always be initiating force if act against the code
   and so "equality before the law" reinforces inequality of power and
   wealth.

   This means that a system of property rights protects the liberties of
   some people in a way which gives them an unacceptable degree of power
   over others. And this cannot be met merely by reaffirming the rights in
   question, we have to assess the relative importance of various kinds of
   liberty and other values we how dear.

   Therefore right-libertarian disregard for equality is important because
   it allows "anarcho"-capitalism to ignore many important restrictions of
   freedom in society. In addition, it allows them to brush over the
   negative effects of their system by painting an unreal picture of a
   capitalist society without vast extremes of wealth and power (indeed,
   they often construe capitalist society in terms of an ideal -- namely
   artisan production -- that is really pre-capitalist and whose social
   basis has been eroded by capitalist development). Inequality shapes the
   decisions we have available and what ones we make:

     "An 'incentive' is always available in conditions of substantial
     social inequality that ensure that the 'weak' enter into a contract.
     When social inequality prevails, questions arises about what counts
     as voluntary entry into a contract . . . Men and women . . . are now
     juridically free and equal citizens, but, in unequal social
     conditions, the possibility cannot be ruled out that some or many
     contracts create relationships that bear uncomfortable resemblances
     to a slave contract." [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p. 62]

   This ideological confusion of right-libertarianism can also be seen
   from their opposition to taxation. On the one hand, they argue that
   taxation is wrong because it takes money from those who "earn" it and
   gives it to the poor. On the other hand, "free market" capitalism is
   assumed to be a more equal society! If taxation takes from the rich and
   gives to the poor, how will "anarcho"-capitalism be more egalitarian?
   That equalisation mechanism would be gone (of course, it could be
   claimed that all great riches are purely the result of state
   intervention skewing the "free market" but that places all their "rags
   to riches" stories in a strange position). Thus we have a problem,
   either we have relative equality or we do not. Either we have riches,
   and so market power, or we do not. And its clear from the likes of
   Rothbard, "anarcho"-capitalism will not be without its millionaires
   (there is, after all, apparently nothing un-libertarian about
   "organisation, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian
   millionaires, and a libertarian party"). And so we are left with market
   power and so extensive unfreedom.

   Thus, for a ideology that denounces egalitarianism as a "revolt against
   nature" it is pretty funny that they paint a picture of
   "anarcho"-capitalism as a society of (relative) equals. In other words,
   their propaganda is based on something that has never existed, and
   never will, namely an egalitarian capitalist society.

3.2 But what about "anarcho"-capitalist support for charity?

   Yes, while being blind to impact of inequality in terms of economic and
   social power and influence, most right-libertarians do argue that the
   very poor could depend on charity in their system. But such a
   recognition of poverty does not reflect an awareness of the need for
   equality or the impact of inequality on the agreements we make. Quite
   the reverse in fact, as the existence of extensive inequality is
   assumed -- after all, in a society of relative equals, poverty would
   not exist, nor would charity be needed.

   Ignoring the fact that their ideology hardly promotes a charitable
   perspective, we will raise four points. Firstly, charity will not be
   enough to countermand the existence and impact of vast inequalities of
   wealth (and so power). Secondly, it will be likely that charities will
   be concerned with "improving" the moral quality of the poor and so will
   divide them into the "deserving" (i.e. obedient) and "undeserving"
   (i.e. rebellious) poor. Charity will be forthcoming to the former,
   those who agree to busy-bodies sticking their noses into their lives.
   In this way charity could become another tool of economic and social
   power (see Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism for more on
   charity). Thirdly, it is unlikely that charity will be able to replace
   all the social spending conducted by the state -- to do so would
   require a ten-fold increase in charitable donations (and given that
   most right-libertarians denounce the government for making them pay
   taxes to help the poor, it seems unlikely that they will turn round and
   increase the amount they give). And, lastly, charity is an implicate
   recognition that, under capitalism, no one has the right of life -- its
   a privilege you have to pay for. That in itself is enough to reject the
   charity option. And, of course, in a system designed to secure the life
   and liberty of each person, how can it be deemed acceptable to leave
   the life and protection of even one individual to the charitable whims
   of others? (Perhaps it will be argued that individual's have the right
   to life, but not a right to be a parasite. This ignores the fact some
   people cannot work -- babies and some handicapped people -- and that,
   in a functioning capitalist economy, many people cannot find work all
   the time. Is it this recognition of that babies cannot work that
   prompts many right-libertarians to turn them into property? Of course,
   rich folk who have never done a days work in their lives are never
   classed as parasites, even if they inherited all their money). All
   things considered, little wonder that Proudhon argued that:

     "Even charitable institutions serve the ends of those in authority
     marvellously well.

     "Charity is the strongest chain by which privilege and the
     Government, bound to protect them, holds down the lower classes.
     With charity, sweeter to the heart of men, more intelligible to the
     poor man than the abstruse laws of Political Economy, one may
     dispense with justice."
     [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 69-70]

   As noted, the right-libertarian (passing) acknowledgement of poverty
   does not mean that they recognise the existence of market power. They
   never ask themselves how can someone be free if their social situation
   is such that they are drowning in a see of usury and have to sell their
   labour (and so liberty) to survive.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append138.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append138.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB1.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append132.html#secf25
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append133.html#secf31
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI5.html#seci512
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append132.html
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append133.html#secf31
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append133.html#secf31
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append133.html#secf31
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append134.html#secf41
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append132.html#secf21
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append136.html#secf63
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append1310.html#secf102
