 7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?

   Of course, "anarcho"-capitalism does have historic precedents and
   "anarcho"-capitalists spend considerable time trying to co-opt various
   individuals into their self-proclaimed tradition of "anti-statist"
   liberalism. That, in itself, should be enough to show that anarchism
   and "anarcho"-capitalism have little in common as anarchism developed
   in opposition to liberalism and its defence of capitalism.
   Unsurprisingly, these "anti-state" liberals tended to, at best, refuse
   to call themselves anarchists or, at worse, explicitly deny they were
   anarchists.

   One "anarcho"-capitalist overview of their tradition is presented by
   David M. Hart. His perspective on anarchism is typical of the school,
   noting that in his essay anarchism or anarchist "are used in the sense
   of a political theory which advocates the maximum amount of individual
   liberty, a necessary condition of which is the elimination of
   governmental or other organised force." [David M. Hart, "Gustave de
   Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part I", pp. 263-290,
   Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. V, no. 3, p. 284] Yet anarchism
   has never been solely concerned with abolishing the state. Rather,
   anarchists have always raised economic and social demands and goals
   along with their opposition to the state. As such, anti-statism may be
   a necessary condition to be an anarchist, but not a sufficient one to
   count a specific individual or theory as anarchist.

   Specifically, anarchists have turned their analysis onto private
   property noting that the hierarchical social relationships created by
   inequality of wealth (for example, wage labour) restricts individual
   freedom. This means that if we do seek "the maximum of individual
   liberty" then our analysis cannot be limited to just the state or
   government. Consequently, to limit anarchism as Hart does requires
   substantial rewriting of history, as can be seen from his account of
   William Godwin.

   Hart tries to co-opt of William Godwin into the ranks of "anti-state"
   liberalism, arguing that he "defended individualism and the right to
   property." [Op. Cit., p. 265] He, of course, quotes from Godwin to
   support his claim yet strangely truncates Godwin's argument to exclude
   his conclusion that "[w]hen the laws of morality shall be clearly
   understood, their excellence universally apprehended, and themselves
   seen to be coincident with each man's private advantage, the idea of
   property in this sense will remain, but no man will have the least
   desire, for purposes of ostentation or luxury, to possess more than his
   neighbours." [An Enquiry into Political Justice, p. 199] In other
   words, personal property (possession) would still exist but not private
   property in the sense of capital or inequality of wealth.

   This analysis is confirmed in book 8 of Godwin's classic work entitled
   "On Property." Needless to say, Hart fails to mention this analysis,
   unsurprising as it was later reprinted as a socialist pamphlet. Godwin
   thought that the "subject of property is the key-stone that completes
   the fabric of political justice." Like Proudhon, Godwin subjects
   property as well as the state to an anarchist analysis. For Godwin,
   there were "three degrees" of property. The first is possession of
   things you need to live. The second is "the empire to which every man
   is entitled over the produce of his own industry." The third is "that
   which occupies the most vigilant attention in the civilised states of
   Europe. It is a system, in whatever manner established, by which one
   man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another
   man's industry." He notes that it is "clear therefore that the third
   species of property is in direct contradiction to the second." [Op.
   Cit., p. 701 and p. 710-2]

   Godwin, unlike classical liberals, saw the need to "point out the evils
   of accumulated property," arguing that the the "spirit of oppression,
   the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud . . . are the
   immediate growth of the established administration of property. They
   are alike hostile to intellectual and moral improvement." Like the
   socialists he inspired, Godwin argued that "it is to be considered that
   this injustice, the unequal distribution of property, the grasping and
   selfish spirit of individuals, is to be regarded as one of the original
   sources of government, and, as it rises in its excesses, is continually
   demanding and necessitating new injustice, new penalties and new
   slavery." He stressed, "let it never be forgotten that accumulated
   property is usurpation." [Op. Cit., p. 732, pp. 717-8, and p. 718]

   Godwin argued against the current system of property and in favour of
   "the justice of an equal distribution of the good things of life." This
   would be based on "[e]quality of conditions, or, in other words, an
   equal admission to the means of improvement and pleasure" as this "is a
   law rigorously enjoined upon mankind by the voice of justice." [Op.
   Cit., p. 725 and p. 736] Thus his anarchist ideas were applied to
   private property, noting like subsequent anarchists that economic
   inequality resulted in the loss of liberty for the many and,
   consequently, an anarchist society would see a radical change in
   property and property rights. As Kropotkin noted, Godwin "stated in
   1793 in a quite definite form the political and economic principle of
   Anarchism." Little wonder he, like so many others, argued that Godwin
   was "the first theoriser of Socialism without government -- that is to
   say, of Anarchism." [Environment and Evolution, p. 62 and p. 26] For
   Kropotkin, anarchism was by definition not restricted to purely
   political issues but also attacked economic hierarchy, inequality and
   injustice. As Peter Marshall confirms, "Godwin's economics, like his
   politics, are an extension of his ethics." [Demanding the Impossible,
   p. 210]

   Godwin's theory of property is significant because it reflected what
   was to become standard nineteenth century socialist thought on the
   matter. In Britain, his ideas influenced Robert Owen and, as a result,
   the early socialist movement in that country. His analysis of property,
   as noted, predated Proudhon's classic anarchist analysis. As such, to
   state, as Hart did, that Godwin simply "concluded that the state was an
   evil which had to be reduced in power if not eliminated completely"
   while not noting his analysis of property gives a radically false
   presentation of his ideas. [Hart, Op. Cit., p. 265] However, it does
   fit into his flawed assertion that anarchism is purely concerned with
   the state. Any evidence to the contrary is simply ignored.

7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?

   No, of course not. Yet according to "anarcho"-capitalism, it is. This
   can be seen from the ideas of Gustave de Molinari.

   Hart is on firmer ground when he argues that the 19th century French
   economist Gustave de Molinari is the true founder of
   "anarcho"-capitalism. With Molinari, he argues, "the two different
   currents of anarchist thought converged: he combined the political
   anarchism of Burke and Godwin with the nascent economic anarchism of
   Adam Smith and Say to create a new forms of anarchism" that has been
   called "anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism." [Op. Cit., p.
   269] Of course, Godwin (like other anarchists) did not limit his
   anarchism purely to "political" issues and so he discussed "economic
   anarchism" as well in his critique of private property (as Proudhon
   also did later). As such, to artificially split anarchism into
   political and economic spheres is both historically and logically
   flawed. While some dictionaries limit "anarchism" to opposition to the
   state, anarchists did and do not.

   The key problem for Hart is that Molinari refused to call himself an
   anarchist. He did not even oppose government, as Hart himself notes
   Molinari proposed a system of insurance companies to provide defence of
   property and "called these insurance companies 'governments' even
   though they did not have a monopoly within a given geographical area."
   As Hart notes, Molinari was the sole defender of such free-market
   justice at the time in France. [David M. Hart, "Gustave de Molinari and
   the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part II", pp. 399-434,
   Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. V, no. 4, p. 415 and p. 411]
   Molinari was clear that he wanted "a regime of free government,"
   counterpoising "monopolist or communist governments" to "free
   governments." This would lead to "freedom of government" rather than
   its abolition (not freedom from government). For Molinarie the future
   would not bring "the suppression of the state which is the dream of the
   anarchists . . . It will bring the diffusion of the state within
   society. That is . . . 'a free state in a free society.'" [quoted by
   Hart, Op. Cit., p. 429, p. 411 and p. 422] As such, Molinari can hardly
   be considered an anarchist, even if "anarchist" is limited to purely
   being against government.

   Moreover, in another sense Molinari was in favour of the state. As we
   discuss in [1]section 6, these companies would have a monopoly within a
   given geographical area -- they have to in order to enforce the
   property owner's power over those who use, but do not own, the property
   in question. The key contradiction can be seen in Molinari's advocating
   of company towns, privately owned communities (his term was a
   "proprietary company"). Instead of taxes, people would pay rent and the
   "administration of the community would be either left in the hands of
   the company itself or handled special organisations set up for this
   purpose." Within such a regime "those with the most property had
   proportionally the greater say in matters which affected the
   community." If the poor objected then they could simply leave. [Op.
   Cit., pp. 421-2 and p. 422]

   Given this, the idea that Molinari was an anarchist in any form can be
   dismissed. His system was based on privatising government, not
   abolishing it (as he himself admitted). This would be different from
   the current system, of course, as landlords and capitalists would be
   hiring force directly to enforce their decisions rather than relying on
   a state which they control indirectly. This system, as we proved in
   [2]section 6, would not be anarchist as can be seen from American
   history. There capitalists and landlords created their own private
   police forces and armies, which regularly attacked and murdered union
   organisers and strikers. As an example, there is Henry Ford's Service
   Department (private police force):

     "In 1932 a hunger march of the unemployed was planned to march up to
     the gates of the Ford plant at Dearborn. . . The machine guns of the
     Dearborn police and the Ford Motor Company's Service Department
     killed [four] and wounded over a score of others. . . Ford was
     fundamentally and entirely opposed to trade unions. The idea of
     working men questioning his prerogatives as an owner was outrageous
     . . . [T]he River Rouge plant. . . was dominated by the autocratic
     regime of Bennett's service men. Bennett . . organise[d] and
     train[ed] the three and a half thousand private policemen employed
     by Ford. His task was to maintain discipline amongst the work force,
     protect Ford's property [and power], and prevent unionisation. . .
     Frank Murphy, the mayor of Detroit, claimed that 'Henry Ford employs
     some of the worst gangsters in our city.' The claim was well based.
     Ford's Service Department policed the gates of his plants,
     infiltrated emergent groups of union activists, posed as workers to
     spy on men on the line. . . Under this tyranny the Ford worker had
     no security, no rights. So much so that any information about the
     state of things within the plant could only be freely obtained from
     ex-Ford workers." [Huw Beynon, Working for Ford, pp. 29-30]

   The private police attacked women workers handing out pro-union
   handbills and gave them "a severe beating." At Kansas and Dallas
   "similar beatings were handed out to the union men." This use of
   private police to control the work force was not unique. General Motors
   "spent one million dollars on espionage, employing fourteen detective
   agencies and two hundred spies at one time [between 1933 and 1936]. The
   Pinkerton Detective Agency found anti-unionism its most lucrative
   activity." [Op. Cit., p. 34 and p. 32] We must also note that the
   Pinkerton's had been selling their private police services for decades
   before the 1930s. For over 60 years the Pinkerton Detective Agency had
   "specialised in providing spies, agent provocateurs, and private armed
   forces for employers combating labour organisations." By 1892 it "had
   provided its services for management in seventy major labour disputes,
   and its 2 000 active agents and 30 000 reserves totalled more than the
   standing army of the nation." [Jeremy Brecher, Strike!, p. 55] With
   this force available, little wonder unions found it so hard to survive
   in the USA.

   Only an "anarcho"-capitalist would deny that this is a private
   government, employing private police to enforce private power. Given
   that unions could be considered as "defence" agencies for workers, this
   suggests a picture of how "anarcho"-capitalism may work in practice
   radically different from the pictures painted by its advocates. The
   reason is simple, it does not ignore inequality and subjects economics
   to an anarchist analysis. Little wonder, then, that Proudhon stressed
   that it "becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into
   democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of
   a relapse into feudalism." Anarchism, in other words, would see
   "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere, the
   wage system abolished" and so "the economic organisation [would]
   replac[e] the governmental and military system." [The General Idea of
   the Revolution, p. 227 and p. 281] Clearly, the idea that Proudhon
   shared the same political goal as Molinari is a joke. He would have
   dismissed such a system as little more than an updated form of
   feudalism in which the property owner is sovereign and the workers
   subjects (see [3]section B.4 for more details).

   Unsurprisingly, Molinari (unlike the individualist anarchists) attacked
   the jury system, arguing that its obliged people to "perform the duties
   of judges. This is pure communism." People would "judge according to
   the colour of their opinions, than according to justice." [quoted by
   Hart, Op. Cit., p. 409] As the jury system used amateurs (i.e. ordinary
   people) rather than full-time professionals it could not be relied upon
   to defend the power and property rights of the rich. As we noted in
   [4]section 1.4, Rothbard criticised the individualist anarchists for
   supporting juries for essentially the same reasons.

   But, as is clear from Hart's account, Molinari had little concern that
   working class people should have a say in their own lives beyond
   consuming goods. His perspective can be seen from his lament about
   those "colonies where slavery has been abolished without the compulsory
   labour being replaced with an equivalent quantity of free [sic!] labour
   [i.e., wage labour], there has occurred the opposite of what happens
   everyday before our eyes. Simple workers have been seen to exploit in
   their turn the industrial entrepreneurs, demanding from them wages
   which bear absolutely no relation to the legitimate share in the
   product which they ought to receive. The planters were unable to obtain
   for their sugar a sufficient price to cover the increase in wages, and
   were obliged to furnish the extra amount, at first out of their
   profits, and then out of their very capital. A considerable number of
   planters have been ruined as a result . . . It is doubtless better that
   these accumulations of capital should be destroyed than that
   generations of men should perish [Marx: 'how generous of M. Molinari']
   but would it not be better if both survived?" [quoted by Karl Marx,
   Capital, vol. 1, p. 937f]

   So workers exploiting capital is the "opposite of what happens everyday
   before our eyes"? In other words, it is normal that entrepreneurs
   "exploit" workers under capitalism? Similarly, what is a "legitimate
   share" which workers "ought to receive"? Surely that is determined by
   the eternal laws of supply and demand and not what the capitalists (or
   Molinari) thinks is right? And those poor former slave drivers, they
   really do deserve our sympathy. What horrors they face from the
   impositions subjected upon them by their ex-chattels -- they had to
   reduce their profits! How dare their ex-slaves refuse to obey them in
   return for what their ex-owners think was their "legitimate share in
   the produce"! How "simple" these workers are, not understanding the
   sacrifices their former masters suffer nor appreciating how much more
   difficult it is for their ex-masters to create "the product" without
   the whip and the branding iron to aid them! As Marx so rightly
   comments: "And what, if you please, is this 'legitimate share', which,
   according to [Molinari's] own admission, the capitalist in Europe daily
   neglects to pay? Over yonder, in the colonies, where the workers are so
   'simple' as to 'exploit' the capitalist, M. Molinari feels a powerful
   itch to use police methods to set on the right road that law of supply
   and demand which works automatically everywhere else." [Op. Cit., p.
   937f]

   An added difficulty in arguing that Molinari was an anarchist is that
   he was a contemporary of Proudhon, the first self-declared anarchist,
   and lived in a country with a vigorous anarchist movement. Surely if he
   was really an anarchist, he would have proclaimed his kinship with
   Proudhon and joined in the wider movement. He did not, as Hart notes as
   regards Proudhon:

     "their differences in economic theory were considerable, and it is
     probably for this reason that Molinari refused to call himself an
     anarchist in spite of their many similarities in political theory.
     Molinari refused to accept the socialist economic ideas of Proudhon
     . . . in Molinari's mind, the term 'anarchist' was intimately linked
     with socialist and statist economic views." [Op. Cit., p. 415]

   Yet Proudhon's economic views, like Godwin's, flowed from his anarchist
   analysis and principles. They cannot be arbitrarily separated as Hart
   suggests. So while arguing that "Molinari was just as much an anarchist
   as Proudhon," Hart forgets the key issue. Proudhon was aware that
   private property ensured that the proletarian did not exercise
   "self-government" during working hours, i.e. was not a self-governing
   individual. As for Hart claiming that Proudhon had "statist economic
   views" it simply shows how far an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective is
   from genuine anarchism. Proudhon's economic analysis, his critique of
   private property and capitalism, flowed from his anarchism and was an
   integral aspect of it.

   To restrict anarchism purely to opposition to the state, Hart is
   impoverishing anarchist theory and denying its history. Given that
   anarchism was born from a critique of private property as well as
   government, this shows the false nature of Hart's claim that "Molinari
   was the first to develop a theory of free-market, proprietary anarchism
   that extended the laws of the market and a rigorous defence of property
   to its logical extreme." [Op. Cit., p. 415 and p. 416] Hart shows how
   far from anarchism Molinari was as Proudhon had turned his anarchist
   analysis to property, showing that "defence of property" lead to the
   oppression of the many by the few in social relationships identical to
   those which mark the state. Moreover, Proudhon, argued the state would
   always be required to defend such social relations. Privatising it
   would hardly be a step forward.

   Unsurprisingly, Proudhon dismissed the idea that the laissez faire
   capitalists shared his goals. "The school of Say," Proudhon argued, was
   "the chief focus of counter-revolution next to the Jesuits" and "has
   for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and applaud the
   execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessities, deepening
   more and more the obscurity of a science naturally difficult and full
   of complications." Much the same can be said of "anarcho"- capitalists,
   incidentally. For Proudhon, "the disciples of Malthus and of Say, who
   oppose with all their might any intervention of the State in matters
   commercial or industrial, do not fail to avail themselves of this
   seemingly liberal attitude, and to show themselves more revolutionary
   than the Revolution. More than one honest searcher has been deceived
   thereby." However, this apparent "anti-statist" attitude of supporters
   of capitalism is false as pure free market capitalism cannot solve the
   social question, which arises because of capitalism itself. As such, it
   was impossible to abolish the state under capitalism. Thus "this
   inaction of Power in economic matters was the foundation of government.
   What need should we have of a political organisation, if Power once
   permitted us to enjoy economic order?" Instead of capitalism, Proudhon
   advocated the "constitution of Value," the "organisation of credit,"
   the elimination of interest, the "establishment of workingmen's
   associations" and "the use of a just price." [The General Idea of the
   Revolution, p. 225, p. 226 and p. 233]

   Clearly, then, the claims that Molinari was an anarchist fail as he,
   unlike his followers, were aware of what anarchism actually stood for.
   Hart, in his own way, acknowledges this:

     "In spite of his protestations to the contrary, Molinari should be
     considered an anarchist thinker. His attack on the state's monopoly
     of defence must surely warrant the description of anarchism. His
     reluctance to accept this label stemmed from the fact that the
     socialists had used it first to describe a form of non-statist
     society which Molinari definitely opposed. Like many original
     thinkers, Molinari had to use the concepts developed by others to
     describe his theories. In his case, he had come to the same
     political conclusions as the communist anarchists although he had
     been working within the liberal tradition, and it is therefore not
     surprising that the terms used by the two schools were not
     compatible. It would not be until the latter half of the twentieth
     century that radical, free-trade liberals would use the word
     'anarchist' to describe their beliefs." [Op. Cit., p. 416]

   It should be noted that Proudhon was not a communist-anarchist, but the
   point remains. The aims of anarchism were recognised by Molinari as
   being inconsistent with his ideology. Consequently, he (rightly)
   refused the label. If only his self-proclaimed followers in the "latter
   half of the twentieth century" did the same anarchists would not have
   to bother with them!

   As such, it seems ironic that the founder of "anarcho"-capitalism
   should have come to the same conclusion as modern day anarchists on the
   subject of whether his ideas are a form of anarchism or not!

7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?

   Of course not, but ironically this is the conclusion arrived at by
   Hart's analyst of the British "voluntaryists," particularly Auberon
   Herbert. Voluntaryism was a fringe part of the right-wing individualist
   movement inspired by Herbert Spencer, a spokesman for free market
   capitalism in the later half of the nineteenth century. As with
   Molinari, there is a problem with presenting this ideology as
   anarchist, namely that its leading light, Herbert, explicitly rejected
   the label "anarchist."

   Herbert was clearly aware of individualist anarchism and distanced
   himself from it. He argued that such a system would be "pandemonium."
   He thought that people should "not direct our attacks - as the
   anarchists do - against all government , against government in itself"
   but "only against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the insolent,
   unreasonable and indefensible forms of government, which are found
   everywhere today." Government should be "strictly limited to its
   legitimate duties in defence of self-ownership and individual rights."
   He stressed that "we are governmentalists . . . formally constituted by
   the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method."
   Moreover, Herbert knew of, and rejected, individualist anarchism,
   considering it to be "founded on a fatal mistake." [Essay X: The
   Principles Of Voluntaryism And Free Life] As such, claims that he was
   an anarchist or "anarcho"-capitalist cannot be justified.

   Hart is aware of this slight problem, quoting Herbert's claim that he
   aimed for "regularly constituted government, generally accepted by all
   citizens for the protection of the individual." [quoted by Hart, Op.
   Cit., p. 86] Like Molinari, Herbert was aware that anarchism was a form
   of socialism and that the political aims could not be artificially
   separated from its economic and social aims. As such, he was right not
   to call his ideas anarchism as it would result in confusion
   (particularly as anarchism was a much larger movement than his). As
   Hart acknowledges, "Herbert faced the same problems that Molinari had
   with labelling his philosophy. Like Molinari, he rejected the term
   'anarchism,' which he associated with the socialism of Proudhon and . .
   . terrorism." While "quite tolerant" of individualist anarchism, he
   thought they "were mistaken in their rejections of 'government.'"
   However, Hart knows better than Herbert about his own ideas, arguing
   that his ideology "is in fact a new form of anarchism, since the most
   important aspect of the modern state, the monopoly of the use of force
   in a given area, is rejected in no uncertain terms by both men." [Op.
   Cit., p. 86] He does mention that Benjamin Tucker called Herbert a
   "true anarchist in everything but name," but Tucker denied that
   Kropotkin was an anarchist suggesting that he was hardly a reliable
   guide. [quoted by Hart, Op. Cit., p. 87] As it stands, it seems that
   Tucker was mistaken in his evaluation of Herbert's politics.

   Economically, Herbert was not an anarchist, arguing that the state
   should protect Lockean property rights. Of course, Hart may argue that
   these economic differences are not relevant to the issue of Herbert's
   anarchism but that is simply to repeat the claim that anarchism is
   simply concerned with government, a claim which is hard to support.
   This position cannot be maintained, given that both Herbert and
   Molinari defended the right of capitalists and landlords to force their
   employees and tenants to follow their orders. Their "governments"
   existed to defend the capitalist from rebellious workers, to break
   unions, strikes and occupations. In other words, they were a monopoly
   of the use of force in a given area to enforce the monopoly of power in
   a given area (namely, the wishes of the property owner). While they may
   have argued that this was "defence of liberty," in reality it is
   defence of power and authority.

   What about if we just look at the political aspects of his ideas? Did
   Herbert actually advocate anarchism? No, far from it. He clearly
   demanded a minimal state based on voluntary taxation. The state would
   not use force of any kind, "except for purposes of restraining force."
   He argued that in his system, while "the state should compel no
   services and exact no payments by force," it "should be free to conduct
   many useful undertakings . . . in competition with all voluntary
   agencies . . . in dependence on voluntary payments." [Herbert, Op.
   Cit.] As such, "the state" would remain and unless he is using the term
   "state" in some highly unusual way, it is clear that he means a system
   where individuals live under a single elected government as their
   common law maker, judge and defender within a given territory.

   This becomes clearer once we look at how the state would be organised.
   In his essay "A Politician in Sight of Haven," Herbert does discuss the
   franchise, stating it would be limited to those who paid a voluntary
   "income tax," anyone "paying it would have the right to vote; those who
   did not pay it would be -- as is just -- without the franchise. There
   would be no other tax." The law would be strictly limited, of course,
   and the "government . . . must confine itself simply to the defense of
   life and property, whether as regards internal or external defense." In
   other words, Herbert was a minimal statist, with his government elected
   by a majority of those who choose to pay their income tax and funded by
   that (and by any other voluntary taxes they decided to pay). Whether
   individuals and companies could hire their own private police in such a
   regime is irrelevant in determining whether it is an anarchy.

   This can be best seen by comparing Herbert with Ayn Rand. No one would
   ever claim Rand was an anarchist, yet her ideas were extremely similar
   to Herbert's. Like Herbert, Rand supported laissez-faire capitalism and
   was against the "initiation of force." Like Herbert, she extended this
   principle to favour a government funded by voluntary means ["Government
   Financing in a Free Society," The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 116-20]
   Moreover, like Herbert, she explicitly denied being an anarchist and,
   again like Herbert, thought the idea of competing defence agencies
   ("governments") would result in chaos. The similarities with Herbert
   are clear, yet no "anarcho"-capitalist would claim that Rand was an
   anarchist, yet they do claim that Herbert was.

   This position is, of course, deeply illogical and flows from the
   non-anarchist nature of "anarcho"-capitalism. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
   when Rothbard discusses the ideas of the "voluntaryists" he fails to
   address the key issue of who determines the laws being enforced in
   society. For Rothbard, the key issue is who is enforcing the law, not
   where that law comes from (as long, of course, as it is a law code he
   approves of). The implications of this is significant, as it implies
   that "anarchism" need not be opposed to either the state nor
   government! This can be clearly seen from Rothbard's analysis of
   voluntary taxation.

   Rothbard, correctly, notes that Herbert advocated voluntary taxation as
   the means of funding a state whose basic role was to enforce Lockean
   property rights. For Rothbard, the key issue was not who determines the
   law but who enforces it. For Rothbard, it should be privatised police
   and courts and he suggests that the "voluntary taxationists have never
   attempted to answer this problem; they have rather stubbornly assumed
   that no one would set up a competing defence agency within a State's
   territorial limits." If the state did bar such firms, then that system
   is not a genuine free market. However, "if the government did permit
   free competition in defence service, there would soon no longer be a
   central government over the territory. Defence agencies, police and
   judicial, would compete with one another in the same uncoerced manner
   as the producers of any other service on the market." [Power and
   Market, p. 122 and p. 123]

   However, this misses the point totally. The key issue that Rothbard
   ignores is who determines the laws which these private "defence"
   agencies would enforce. If the laws are determined by a central
   government, then the fact that citizen's can hire private police and
   attend private courts does not stop the regime being statist. We can
   safely assume Rand, for example, would have had no problem with
   companies providing private security guards or the hiring of private
   detectives within the context of her minimal state. Ironically,
   Rothbard stresses the need for such a monopoly legal system:

     "While 'the government' would cease to exist, the same cannot be
     said for a constitution or a rule of law, which, in fact, would take
     on in the free society a far more important function than at
     present. For the freely competing judicial agencies would have to be
     guided by a body of absolute law to enable them to distinguish
     objectively between defence and invasion. This law, embodying
     elaborations upon the basic injunction to defend person and property
     from acts of invasion, would be codified in the basic legal code.
     Failure to establish such a code of law would tend to break down the
     free market, for then defence against invasion could not be
     adequately achieved." [Op. Cit., p. 123-4]

   So if you violate the "absolute law" defending (absolute) property
   rights then you would be in trouble. The problem now lies in
   determining who sets that law. Rothbard is silent on how his system of
   monopoly laws are determined or specified. The "voluntaryists" did
   propose a solution, namely a central government elected by the majority
   of those who voluntarily decided to pay an income tax. In the words of
   Herbert:

     "We agree that there must be a central agency to deal with crime -
     an agency that defends the liberty of all men, and employs force
     against the uses of force; but my central agency rests upon
     voluntary support, whilst Mr. Levy's central agency rests on
     compulsory support." [quoted by Carl Watner, "The English
     Individualists As They Appear In Liberty," pp. 191-211, Benjamin R.
     Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, p. 194]

   And all Rothbard is concerned over private cops would exist or not!
   This lack of concern over the existence of the state and government
   flows from the strange fact that "anarcho"-capitalists commonly use the
   term "anarchism" to refer to any philosophy that opposes all forms of
   initiatory coercion. Notice that government does not play a part in
   this definition, thus Rothbard can analyse Herbert's politics without
   commenting on who determines the law his private "defence" agencies
   enforce. For Rothbard, "an anarchist society" is defined "as one where
   there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the
   person and property of any individual." He then moved onto the state,
   defining that as an "institution which possesses one or both (almost
   always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by
   the physical coercion known as 'taxation'; and (2) it acquires and
   usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defence service
   (police and courts) over a given territorial area." ["Society without a
   State", in Nomos XIX, Pennock and Chapman (eds.)., p. 192]

   This is highly unusual definition of "anarchism," given that it utterly
   fails to mention or define government. This, perhaps, is understandable
   as any attempt to define it in terms of "monopoly of decision-making
   power" results in showing that capitalism is statist (see [5]section 1
   for a summary). The key issue here is the term "legal possibility."
   That suggestions a system of laws which determine what is "coercive
   aggression" and what constitutes what is and what is not legitimate
   "property." Herbert is considered by "anarcho"-capitalists as one of
   them. Which brings us to a strange conclusion, that for
   "anarcho"-capitalists you can have a system of "anarchism" in which
   there is a government and state -- as long as the state does not impose
   taxation nor stop private police forces from operating!

   As Rothbard argues "if a government based on voluntary taxation permits
   free competition, the result will be the purely free-market system . .
   . The previous government would now simply be one competing defence
   agency among many on the market." [Power and Market, p. 124] That the
   government is specifying what is and is not legal does not seem to
   bother him or even cross his mind. Why should it, when the existence of
   government is irrelevant to his definition of anarchism and the state?
   That private police are enforcing a monopoly law determined by the
   government seems hardly a step in the right direction nor can it be
   considered as anarchism. Perhaps this is unsurprising, for under his
   system there would be "a basic, common Law Code" which "all would have
   to abide by" as well as "some way of resolving disputes that will gain
   a majority consensus in society . . . whose decision will be accepted
   by the great majority of the public." ["Society without a State," Op.
   Cit., p. 205]

   At least Herbert is clear that this would be a government system,
   unlike Rothbard who assumes a monopoly law but seems to think that this
   is not a government or a state. As David Wieck argued, this is
   illogical for according to Rothbard "all 'would have to' conform to the
   same legal code" and this can only be achieved by means of "the
   forceful action of adherents to the code against those who flout it"
   and so "in his system there would stand over against every individual
   the legal authority of all the others. An individual who did not
   recognise private property as legitimate would surely perceive this as
   a tyranny of law, a tyranny of the majority or of the most powerful --
   in short, a hydra-headed state. If the law code is itself unitary, then
   this multiple state might be said to have properly a single head -- the
   law . . . But it looks as though one might still call this 'a state,'
   under Rothbard's definition, by satisfying de facto one of his pair of
   sufficient conditions: 'It asserts and usually obtains a coerced
   monopoly of provision of defence service (police and courts) over a
   given territorial area' . . . Hobbes's individual sovereign would seem
   to have become many sovereigns -- with but one law, however, and in
   truth, therefore, a single sovereign in Hobbes's more important sense
   of the latter term. One might better, and less confusingly, call this a
   libertarian state than an anarchy." ["Anarchist Justice", in Nomos XIX,
   Pennock and Chapman (eds.)., pp. 216-7]

   The obvious recipients of the coercion of the new state would be those
   who rejected the authority of their bosses and landlords, those who
   reject the Lockean property rights Rothbard and Herbert hold dear. In
   such cases, the rebels and any "defence agency" (like, say, a union)
   which defended them would be driven out of business as it violated the
   law of the land. How this is different from a state banning competing
   agencies is hard to determine. This is a "difficulty" argues Wieck,
   which "results from the attachment of a principle of private property,
   and of unrestricted accumulation of wealth, to the principle of
   individual liberty. This increases sharply the possibility that many
   reasonable people who respect their fellow men and women will find
   themselves outside the law because of dissent from a property
   interpretation of liberty." Similarly, there is the economic results of
   capitalism. "One can imagine," Wieck continues, "that those who lose
   out badly in the free competition of Rothbard's economic system,
   perhaps a considerable number, might regard the legal authority as an
   alien power, state for them, based on violence, and might be quite
   unmoved by the fact that, just as under nineteenth century capitalism,
   a principle of liberty was the justification for it all." [Op. Cit., p.
   217 and pp. 217-8]

7.3 Can there be a "right-wing" anarchism?

   Hart, of course, mentions the individualist anarchists, calling
   Tucker's ideas "laissez faire liberalism." [Op. Cit., p. 87] However,
   Tucker called his ideas "socialism" and presented a left-wing critique
   of most aspects of liberalism, particularly its Lockean based private
   property rights. Tucker based much of his ideas on property on
   Proudhon, so if Hart dismisses the latter as a socialist then this must
   apply to the former. Given that he notes that there are "two main kinds
   of anarchist thought," namely "communist anarchism which denies the
   right of an individual to seek profit, charge rent or interest and to
   own property" and a "'right-wing' proprietary anarchism, which
   vigorously defends these rights" then Tucker, like Godwin, would have
   to be placed in the "left-wing" camp. ["Gustave de Molinari and the
   Anti-statist Liberal Tradition: Part II", Op. Cit., p. 427] Tucker,
   after all, argued that he aimed for the end of profit, interest and
   rent and attacked private property in land and housing beyond
   "occupancy and use."

   As can be seen, Hart's account of the history of "anti-state"
   liberalism is flawed. Godwin is included only by ignoring his views on
   property, views which in many ways reflects the later "socialist" (i.e.
   anarchist) analysis of Proudhon. He then discusses a few individuals
   who were alone in their opinions even within extreme free market right
   and all of whom knew of anarchism and explicitly rejected the name for
   their respective ideologies. In fact, they preferred the term
   "government" to describe their systems which, on the face of it, would
   be hard to reconcile with the usual "anarcho"-capitalist definition of
   anarchism as being "no government." Hart's discussion of individualist
   anarchism is equally flawed, failing to discuss their economic views
   (just as well, as its links to "left-wing" anarchism would be obvious).

   However, the similarities of Molinari's views with what later became
   known as "anarcho"-capitalism are clear. Hart notes that with
   Molinari's death in 1912, "liberal anti-statism virtually disappeared
   until it was rediscovered by the economist Murray Rothbard in the late
   1950's" ["Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-statist Liberal Tradition:
   Part III", Op. Cit., p. 88] While this fringe is somewhat bigger than
   previously, the fact remains that the ideas expounded by Rothbard are
   just as alien to the anarchist tradition as Molinari's. It is a shame
   that Rothbard, like his predecessors, did not call his ideology
   something other than anarchism. Not only would it have been more
   accurate, it would also have lead to much less confusion and no need to
   write this section of the FAQ! As it stands, the only reason why
   "anarcho"-capitalism is considered a form of "anarchism" by some is
   because one person (Rothbard) decided to steal the name of a well
   established and widespread political and social theory and movement and
   apply it to an ideology with little, if anything, in common with it.

   As Hart inadvertently shows, it is not a firm base to build a claim.
   That anyone can consider "anarcho"-capitalism as anarchist simply flows
   from a lack of knowledge about anarchism. As numerous anarchists have
   argued. For example, "Rothbard's conjunction of anarchism with
   capitalism," according to David Wieck, "results in a conception that is
   entirely outside the mainstream of anarchist theoretical writings or
   social movements . . . this conjunction is a self-contradiction." He
   stressed that "the main traditions of anarchism are entirely different.
   These traditions, and theoretical writings associated with them,
   express the perspectives and the aspirations, and also, sometimes, the
   rage, of the oppressed people in human society: not only those
   economically oppressed, although the major anarchist movements have
   been mainly movements of workers and peasants, but also those oppressed
   by power in all those social dimensions . . . including of course that
   of political power expressed in the state." In other words, "anarchism
   represents . . . a moral commitment (Rothbard's anarchism I take to be
   diametrically opposite)." ["Anarchist Justice", in Nomos XIX, Pennock
   and Chapman (eds.), p. 215, p. 229 and p. 234]

   It is a shame that some academics consider only the word Rothbard uses
   as relevant rather than the content and its relation to anarchist
   theory and history. If they did, they would soon realise that the
   expressed opposition of so many anarchists to "anarcho"-capitalism is
   something which cannot be ignored or dismissed. In other words, a
   "right-wing" anarchist cannot and does not exist, no matter how often
   they use that word to describe their ideology. As Bob Black put it, "a
   right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who'd abolish the state to
   his own satisfaction by calling it something else . . . They don't
   denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it."
   [Libertarian as Conservative]

   The reason is simple. Anarchist economics and politics cannot be
   artificially separated, they are linked. Godwin and Proudhon did not
   stop their analysis at the state. They extended it the social
   relationships produced by inequality of wealth, i.e. economic power as
   well as political power. To see why, we need only consult Rothbard's
   work. As noted in the [6]last section, for Rothbard the key issue with
   the "voluntary taxationists" was not who determined the "body of
   absolute law" but rather who enforced it. In his discussion, he argued
   that a democratic "defence agency" is at a disadvantage in his "free
   market" system. As he put it:

     "It would, in fact, be competing at a severe disadvantage, having
     been established on the principle of 'democratic voting.' Looked at
     as a market phenomenon, 'democratic voting' (one vote per person) is
     simply the method of the consumer 'co-operative.' Empirically, it
     has been demonstrated time and again that co-operatives cannot
     compete successfully against stock-owned companies, especially when
     both are equal before the law. There is no reason to believe that
     co-operatives for defence would be any more efficient. Hence, we may
     expect the old co-operative government to 'wither away' through loss
     of customers on the market, while joint-stock (i.e., corporate)
     defence agencies would become the prevailing market form."

   Notice how he assumes that both a co-operative and corporation would be
   "equal before the law." But who determines that law? Obviously not a
   democratically elected government, as the idea of "one person, one
   vote" in determining the common law all are subject to is
   "inefficient." Nor does he think, like the individualist anarchists,
   that the law would be judged by juries along with the facts. As we note
   in [7]section 1.4, he rejects that in favour of it being determined by
   "Libertarian lawyers and jurists." Thus the law is unchangeable by
   ordinary people and enforced by private defence agencies hired to
   protect the liberty and property of the owning class. In the case of a
   capitalist economy, this means defending the power of landlords and
   capitalists against rebel tenants and workers.

   This means that Rothbard's "common Law Code" will be determined,
   interpreted, enforced and amended by corporations based on the will of
   the majority of shareholders, i.e. the rich. That hardly seems likely
   to produce equality before the law. As he argues in a footnote:

     "There is a strong a priori reason for believing that corporations
     will be superior to co-operatives in any given situation. For if
     each owner receives only one vote regardless of how much money he
     has invested in a project (and earnings are divided in the same
     way), there is no incentive to invest more than the next man; in
     fact, every incentive is the other way. This hampering of investment
     militates strongly against the co-operative form."

   So if the law is determined by the defence agencies and courts then it
   will be determined by those who have invested most in these companies.
   As it is unlikely that the rich will invest in defence firms which do
   not support their property rights, power, profits and definition of
   property rights, it is clear that agencies which favour the wealthy
   will survive on the market. The idea that market demand will counter
   this class rule seems unlikely, given Rothbard's own argument. After
   all, in order to compete successfully you need more than demand, you
   need source of investment. If co-operative defence agencies do form,
   they will be at a market disadvantage due to lack of investment. As
   argued in [8]section J.5.12, even though co-operatives are more
   efficient than capitalist firms lack of investment (caused by the lack
   of control by capitalists Rothbard notes) stops them replacing wage
   slavery. Thus capitalist wealth and power inhibits the spread of
   freedom in production. If we apply his own argument to Rothbard's
   system, we suggest that the market in "defence" will also stop the
   spread of more libertarian associations thanks to capitalist power and
   wealth. In other words, like any market, Rothbard's "defence" market
   will simply reflect the interests of the elite, not the masses.

   Moreover, we can expect any democratic defence agency (like a union) to
   support, say, striking workers or squatting tenants, to be crushed.
   This is because, as Rothbard stresses, all "defence" firms would be
   expected to apply the "common" law, as written by "Libertarian lawyers
   and jurists." If they did not they would quickly be labelled "outlaw"
   agencies and crushed by the others. Ironically, Tucker would join
   Bakunin and Kropotkin in an "anarchist" court accused to violating
   "anarchist" law by practising and advocating "occupancy and use" rather
   than the approved Rothbardian property rights. Even if these democratic
   "defence" agencies could survive and not be driven out of the market by
   a combination of lack of investment and violence due to their "outlaw"
   status, there is another problem. As we discussed in [9]section 1,
   landlords and capitalists have a monopoly of decision making power over
   their property. As such, they can simply refuse to recognise any
   democratic agency as a legitimate defence association and use the same
   tactics perfected against unions to ensure that it does not gain a
   foothold in their domain (see [10]section 6 for more details).

   Clearly, then, a "right-wing" anarchism is impossible as any system
   based on capitalist property rights will simply be an oligarchy run by
   and for the wealthy. As Rothbard notes, any defence agency based on
   democratic principles will not survive in the "market" for defence
   simply because it does not allow the wealthy to control it and its
   decisions. Little wonder Proudhon argued that laissez-faire capitalism
   meant "the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who own
   property over those who own nothing." [quoted by Peter Marshall,
   Demanding the Impossible, p. 259]

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append136.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append136.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append131.html#secf14
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append131.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append137.html#secf72
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append131.html#secf14
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj512
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append131.html
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append136.html
