               5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?

   "Anarcho"-capitalists aim for a situation in which "no land areas, no
   square footage in the world shall remain 'public,'" in other words
   everything will be "privatised." [Murray Rothbard, Nations by Consent,
   p. 84] They claim that privatising "the commons" (e.g. roads, parks,
   etc.) which are now freely available to all will increase liberty. Is
   this true? We have shown before why the claim that privatisation can
   protect the environment is highly implausible (see section [1]E.2).
   Here we will concern ourselves with private ownership of commonly used
   "property" which we all take for granted and pay for with taxes.

   Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society
   based on "privatised" roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard in For a
   New Liberty, pp. 202-203 and David Friedman in The Machinery of
   Freedom, pp. 98-101) that the only increase of liberty will be for the
   ruling elite. As "anarcho"-capitalism is based on paying for what one
   uses, privatisation of roads would require some method of tracking
   individuals to ensure that they pay for the roads they use. In the UK,
   for example, during the 1980s the British Tory government looked into
   the idea of toll-based motorways. Obviously having toll-booths on
   motorways would hinder their use and restrict "freedom," and so they
   came up with the idea of tracking cars by satellite. Every vehicle
   would have a tracking device installed in it and a satellite would
   record where people went and which roads they used. They would then be
   sent a bill or have their bank balances debited based on this
   information (in the fascist city-state/company town of Singapore such a
   scheme has been introduced).

   If we extrapolate from this example to a system of fully privatised
   "commons," it would clearly require all individuals to have tracking
   devices on them so they could be properly billed for use of roads,
   pavements, etc. Obviously being tracked by private firms would be a
   serious threat to individual liberty. Another, less costly, option
   would be for private guards to randomly stop and question car-owners
   and individuals to make sure they had paid for the use of the road or
   pavement in question. "Parasites" would be arrested and fined or locked
   up. Again, however, being stopped and questioned by uniformed
   individuals has more in common with police states than liberty.
   Toll-boothing every street would be highly unfeasible due to the costs
   involved and difficulties for use that it implies. Thus the idea of
   privatising roads and charging drivers to gain access seems impractical
   at best and distinctly freedom endangering if implemented at worse.

   Of course, the option of owners letting users have free access to the
   roads and pavements they construct and run would be difficult for a
   profit-based company. No one could make a profit in that case. If
   companies paid to construct roads for their customers/employees to use,
   they would be financially hindered in competition with other companies
   that did not, and thus would be unlikely to do so. If they restricted
   use purely to their own customers, the tracking problem appears again.

   Some may object that this picture of extensive surveillance of
   individuals would not occur or be impossible. However, Murray Rothbard
   (in a slightly different context) argued that technology would be
   available to collate information about individuals. He argued that
   "[i]t should be pointed out that modern technology makes even more
   feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people's
   credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or
   arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist [sic!] society would
   see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data." ["Society
   Without A State", in Nomos XIX, Pennock and Chapman (eds.), p. 199] So,
   perhaps, with the total privatisation of society we would also see the
   rise of private Big Brothers, collecting information about individuals
   for use by property owners. The example of the Economic League (a
   British company who provided the "service" of tracking the political
   affiliations and activities of workers for employers) springs to mind.

   And, of course, these privatisation suggestions ignore differences in
   income and market power. If, for example, variable pricing is used to
   discourage road use at times of peak demand (to eliminate traffic jams
   at rush-hour) as is suggested both by Murray Rothbard and David
   Friedman, then the rich will have far more "freedom" to travel than the
   rest of the population. And we may even see people having to go into
   debt just to get to work or move to look for work.

   Which raises another problem with notion of total privatisation, the
   problem that it implies the end of freedom of travel. Unless you get
   permission or (and this seems more likely) pay for access, you will not
   be able to travel anywhere. As Rothbard himself makes clear,
   "anarcho"-capitalism means the end of the right to roam or even travel.
   He states that "it became clear to me that a totally privatised country
   would not have open borders at all. If every piece of land in a country
   were owned . . . no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter
   and allowed to rent, or purchase, property." [Nations by Consent, p.
   84] What happens to those who cannot afford to pay for access is not
   addressed (perhaps, being unable to exit a given capitalist's land they
   will become bonded labourers? Or be imprisoned and used to undercut
   workers' wages via prison labour? Perhaps they will just be shot as
   trespassers? Who can tell?). Nor is it addressed how this situation
   actually increases freedom. For Rothbard, a "totally privatised country
   would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and property owners
   [not the same thing, we must point out] desire. It seems clear, then,
   that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the US really
   amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state. . . and does not
   genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors." [Op. Cit., p. 85] Of
   course, the wishes of non-proprietors (the vast majority) do not matter
   in the slightest. Thus, it is clear, that with the privatisation of
   "the commons" the right to roam, to travel, would become a privilege,
   subject to the laws and rules of the property owners. This can hardly
   be said to increase freedom for anyone bar the capitalist class.

   Rothbard acknowledges that "in a fully privatised world, access rights
   would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership." [Nations by
   Consent, p. 86] Given that there is no free lunch, we can imagine we
   would have to pay for such "rights." The implications of this are
   obviously unappealing and an obvious danger to individual freedom. The
   problem of access associated with the idea of privatising the roads can
   only be avoided by having a "right of passage" encoded into the
   "general libertarian law code." This would mean that road owners would
   be required, by law, to let anyone use them. But where are "absolute"
   property rights in this case? Are the owners of roads not to have the
   same rights as other owners? And if "right of passage" is enforced,
   what would this mean for road owners when people sue them for
   car-pollution related illnesses? (The right of those injured by
   pollution to sue polluters is the main way "anarcho"-capitalists
   propose to protect the environment. See sections [2]E.2 and [3]E.3). It
   is unlikely that those wishing to bring suit could find, never mind
   sue, the millions of individual car owners who could have potentially
   caused their illness. Hence the road-owners would be sued for letting
   polluting (or unsafe) cars onto "their" roads. The road-owners would
   therefore desire to restrict pollution levels by restricting the right
   to use their property, and so would resist the "right of passage" as an
   "attack" on their "absolute" property rights. If the road-owners got
   their way (which would be highly likely given the need for "absolute"
   property rights and is suggested by the variable pricing way to avoid
   traffic jams mentioned above) and were able to control who used their
   property, freedom to travel would be very restricted and limited to
   those whom the owner considered "desirable." Indeed, Murray Rothbard
   supports such a regime ("In the free [sic!] society, they [travellers]
   would, in the first instance, have the right to travel only on those
   streets whose owners agree to have them there" [The Ethics of Liberty,
   p. 119]). The threat to liberty in such a system is obvious -- to all
   but Rothbard and other right-libertarians, of course.

   To take another example, let us consider the privatisation of parks,
   streets and other public areas. Currently, individuals can use these
   areas to hold political demonstrations, hand out leaflets, picket and
   so on. However, under "anarcho"-capitalism the owners of such property
   can restrict such liberties if they desire, calling such activities
   "initiation of force" (although they cannot explain how speaking your
   mind is an example of "force"). Therefore, freedom of speech, assembly
   and a host of other liberties we take for granted would be reduced (if
   not eliminated) under a right-"libertarian" regime. Or, taking the case
   of pickets and other forms of social struggle, its clear that
   privatising "the commons" would only benefit the bosses. Strikers or
   other activists picketing or handing out leaflets in shopping centre's
   are quickly ejected by private security even today. Think about how
   much worse it would become under "anarcho"-capitalism when the whole
   world becomes a series of malls -- it would be impossible to hold a
   picket when the owner of the pavement objects, for example (as Rothbard
   himself argues, Op. Cit., p. 132) and if the owner of the pavement also
   happens to be the boss being picketed, then workers' rights would be
   zero. Perhaps we could also see capitalists suing working class
   organisations for littering their property if they do hand out leaflets
   (so placing even greater stress on limited resources).

   The I.W.W. went down in history for its rigorous defence of freedom of
   speech because of its rightly famous "free speech" fights in numerous
   American cities and towns. Repression was inflicted upon wobblies who
   joined the struggle by "private citizens," but in the end the I.W.W.
   won. Consider the case under "anarcho"-capitalism. The wobblies would
   have been "criminal aggressors" as the owners of the streets have
   refused to allow "undesirables" to use them to argue their case. If
   they refused to acknowledge the decree of the property owners, private
   cops would have taken them away. Given that those who controlled city
   government in the historical example were the wealthiest citizens in
   town, its likely that the same people would have been involved in the
   fictional ("anarcho"-capitalist) account. Is it a good thing that in
   the real account the wobblies are hailed as heroes of freedom but in
   the fictional one they are "criminal aggressors"? Does converting
   public spaces into private property really stop restrictions on free
   speech being a bad thing?

   Of course, Rothbard (and other right-libertarians) are aware that
   privatisation will not remove restrictions on freedom of speech,
   association and so on (while, at the same time, trying to portray
   themselves as supporters of such liberties!). However, for
   right-libertarians such restrictions are of no consequence. As Rothbard
   argues, any "prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply
   be requirements for residence or for use of some person's or
   community's land area." [Nations by Consent, p. 85] Thus we yet again
   see the blindness of right-libertarians to the commonality between
   private property and the state. The state also maintains that
   submitting to its authority is the requirement for taking up residence
   in its territory (see also [4]section 2.3 for more on this). As
   Benjamin Tucker noted, the state can be defined as (in part) "the
   assumption of sole authority over a given area and all within it." [The
   Individualist Anarchists, p. 24] If the property owners can determine
   "prohibitions" (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the property
   then they are the "sole authority over a given area and all within it,"
   i.e. a state. Thus privatising "the commons" means subjecting the
   non-property owners to the rules and laws of the property owners -- in
   effect, privatising the state and turning the world into a series of
   Monarchies and oligarchies without the pretence of democracy and
   democratic rights.

   These examples can hardly be said to be increasing liberty for society
   as a whole, although "anarcho" capitalists seem to think they would. So
   far from increasing liberty for all, then, privatising the commons
   would only increase it for the ruling elite, by giving them yet another
   monopoly from which to collect income and exercise their power over. It
   would reduce freedom for everyone else. As Peter Marshall notes, "[i]n
   the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public
   spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high
   fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when
   it is enjoyed by all" [Demanding the Impossible, p. 564].

   Little wonder Proudhon argued that "if the public highway is nothing
   but an accessory of private property; if the communal lands are
   converted into private property; if the public domain, in short, is
   guarded, exploited, leased, and sold like private property -- what
   remains for the proletaire? Of what advantage is it to him that society
   has left the state of war to enter the regime of police?" [System of
   Economic Contradictions, p. 371]

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secE2.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secE2.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secE3.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append132.html#secf23
