« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to append131.html
- browse files at revision 5
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 5
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Mauro Lizaur
- Date: 2010-08-15 20:50:06 UTC
- mfrom: (1.2.3 upstream)
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20100815205006-g6n34el0anfxdjcv
Tags: 13.4-1
* New upstream release. (Closes: #441622)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
- files added:
- .pc
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches/html
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches/txt
- debian/patches
- debian/source
- html
- txt
- files removed:
- 10years.html
- files modified:
- debian/README.Debian
added
removed
append131.html
1
<html>
2
<head>
3
<title>1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?
4
</title>
5
</head>
6
7
<h1>1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?</h1>
8
9
In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate
10
themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho"
11
or by calling themselves "anarchists", their ideas are distinctly at
12
odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that
13
their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist
14
tradition or movement are false.
15
<p>
16
"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they
17
oppose government. As such, as noted in the <a href="append13int.html">last section</a>, they use
18
a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate
19
that anarchism is a <b>political theory</b>, not a dictionary definition.
20
As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means
21
that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to
22
government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation
23
and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary
24
but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need
25
to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As
26
"anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e.
27
capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights,
28
they are not anarchists.
29
<p>
30
Moreover, "anarcho"-capitalism is inherently self-refuting. This can be
31
seen from leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray Rothbard. he thundered
32
against the evil of the state, arguing that it <i>"arrogates to itself a
33
monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given area
34
territorial area."</i> In and of itself, this definition is unremarkable.
35
That a few people (an elite of rulers) claim the right to rule others
36
must be part of any sensible definition of the state or government.
37
However, the problems begin for Rothbard when he notes that
38
<i>"[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making
39
power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."</i> [<b>The Ethics of
40
Liberty</b>, p. 170 and p. 173] The logical contradiction in this position
41
should be obvious, but not to Rothbard. It shows the power of ideology,
42
the ability of means words (the expression <i>"private property"</i>) to turn
43
the bad (<i>"ultimate decision-making power over a given area"</i>) into the
44
good (<i>"ultimate decision-making power over a given area"</i>).
45
<p>
46
Now, this contradiction can be solved in only <b>one</b> way -- the owners
47
of the <i>"given area"</i> are also its users. In other words, a system of
48
possession (or "occupancy and use") as favoured by anarchists. However,
49
Rothbard is a capitalist and supports private property. In other
50
words, wage labour and landlords. This means that he supports a
51
divergence between ownership and use and this means that this
52
<i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i> extends to those who <b>use,</b> but do
53
not own, such property (i.e. tenants and workers). The statist nature
54
of private property is clearly indicated by Rothbard's words -- the
55
property owner in an "anarcho"-capitalist society possesses the
56
<i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i> over a given area, which is also what
57
the state has currently. Rothbard has, ironically, proved by his own
58
definition that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.
59
<p>
60
Rothbard does try to solve this obvious contradiction, but utterly fails.
61
He simply ignores the crux of the matter, that capitalism is based on
62
hierarchy and, therefore, cannot be anarchist. He does this by arguing
63
that the hierarchy associated with capitalism is fine as long as the
64
private property that produced it was acquired in a "just" manner. In
65
so doing he yet again draws attention to the identical authority
66
structures and social relationships of the state and property. As
67
he puts it:
68
<p><blockquote>
69
<i>"<b>If</b> the State may be said too properly <b>own</b> its territory, then
70
it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to
71
live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private
72
property because there <b>is</b> no private property in its area,
73
because it really owns the entire land surface. <b>So long</b> as
74
the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it
75
can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules
76
for people living on his property."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 170]
77
</blockquote><p>
78
Obviously Rothbard argues that the state does not "justly" own its
79
territory -- but given that the current distribution of property
80
is just as much the result of violence and coercion as the state,
81
his argument is seriously flawed. It amounts, as we note in
82
<a href="append134.html">section 4</a>, to little more than an <i><b>"immaculate conception of property"</b></i>
83
unrelated to reality. Even assuming that private property was
84
produced by the means Rothbard assumes, it does not justify the
85
hierarchy associated with it as the current and future generations
86
of humanity have, effectively, been excommunicated from liberty by
87
previous ones. If, as Rothbard argues, property is a natural right
88
and the basis of liberty then why should the many be excluded from
89
their birthright by a minority? In other words, Rothbard denies that
90
liberty should be universal. He chooses property over liberty while
91
anarchists choose liberty over property.
92
<p>
93
Even worse, the possibility that private property can result in <b>worse</b>
94
violations of individual freedom (at least of workers) than the state
95
of its citizens was implicitly acknowledged by Rothbard. He uses as a
96
hypothetical example a country whose King is threatened by a rising
97
"libertarian" movement. The King responses by <i>"employ[ing] a cunning
98
stratagem,"</i> namely he <i>"proclaims his government to be dissolved, but
99
just before doing so he arbitrarily parcels out the entire land area
100
of his kingdom to the 'ownership' of himself and his relatives."</i> Rather
101
than taxes, his subjects now pay rent and he can <i>"regulate to regulate
102
the lives of all the people who presume to live on"</i> his property as he
103
sees fit. Rothbard then asks:
104
<p><blockquote>
105
<i>"Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert
106
challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this
107
subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less
108
despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps,
109
indeed, <b>more</b> despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim
110
for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right
111
of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared
112
to claim before."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 54-5]
113
</blockquote><p>
114
So not only does the property owner have the same monopoly of power
115
over a given area as the state, it is <b>more</b> despotic as it is based
116
on the <i>"absolute right of private property"</i>! And remember, Rothbard
117
is arguing <b>in favour</b> of "anarcho"-capitalismAnd remember, Rothbard
118
is arguing <b>in favour</b> of "anarcho"-capitalism (<i>"if you have unbridled
119
capitalism, you will have all kinds of authority: you will have <b>extreme</b>
120
authority."</i> [Chomksy, <b>Understanding Power</b>, p. 200]). So in practice,
121
private property is a major source of oppression and authoritarianism within
122
society -- there is little or no freedom within capitalist production
123
(as Bakunin noted, <i>"the worker sells his person and his liberty for
124
a given time"</i>). So, in stark contrast to anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists
125
have no problem with factory fascism (i.e. wage labour), a position which
126
seems highly illogical for a theory calling itself libertarian. If it
127
were truly libertarian, it would oppose all forms of domination, not
128
just statism. This position flows from the "anarcho"-capitalist
129
definition of freedom as the absence of coercion and will be discussed
130
in <a href="append132.html">section 2</a> in more detail.
131
<p>
132
Of course, Rothbard has yet another means to escape the obvious, namely
133
that the market will limit the abuses of the property owners. If workers
134
do not like their ruler then they can seek another. However, this reply
135
completely ignores the reality of economic and social power. Thus the
136
"consent" argument fails because it ignores the social circumstances of
137
capitalism which limit the choice of the many. Anarchists have long argued
138
that, as a class, workers have little choice but to "consent" to capitalist
139
hierarchy. The alternative is either dire poverty or starvation.
140
<p>
141
"Anarcho"-capitalists dismiss such claims by denying that there is such a
142
thing as economic power. Rather, it is simply freedom of contract. Anarchists
143
consider such claims as a joke. To show why, we need only quote (yet again)
144
Rothbard on the abolition of slavery and serfdom in the 19th century. He
145
argued, correctly, that the <i>"<b>bodies</b> of the oppressed were freed, but the
146
property which they had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in
147
the hands of their former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining
148
in their hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual masters
149
once more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and
150
slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits."</i>
151
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 74]
152
<p>
153
To say the least, anarchists fail to see the logic in this position. Contrast
154
this with the standard "anarcho"-capitalist claim that if market forces
155
("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of <i>"free tenants or farm
156
labourers"</i> then they are free. Yet labourers dispossessed by market forces
157
are in exactly the same social and economic situation as the ex-serfs and
158
ex-slaves. If the latter do not have the fruits of freedom, neither do
159
the former. Rothbard sees the obvious <i>"economic power"</i> in the latter case,
160
but denies it in the former. It is only Rothbard's ideology that stops
161
him from drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical economic conditions
162
produce identical social relationships and so capitalism is marked by
163
<i>"economic power"</i> and <i>"virtual masters."</i> The only solution is for
164
"anarcho"-capitalists to simply say the ex-serfs and ex-slaves were
165
actually free to choose and, consequently, Rothbard was wrong. It might
166
be inhuman, but at least it would be consistent!
167
<p>
168
Rothbard's perspective is alien to anarchism. For example, as
169
individualist anarchist William Bailie noted, under capitalism
170
there is a class system marked by <i>"a dependent industrial class of
171
wage-workers"</i> and <i>"a privileged class of wealth-monopolisers, each
172
becoming more and more distinct from the other as capitalism advances."</i>
173
This has turned property into <i>"a social power, an economic force
174
destructive of rights, a fertile source of injustice, a means of
175
enslaving the dispossessed."</i> He concludes: <i>"Under this system equal
176
liberty cannot obtain."</i> Bailie notes that the modern <i>"industrial
177
world under capitalistic conditions"</i> have <i>"arisen under the <b>regime</b>
178
of status"</i> (and so <i>"law-made privileges"</i>) however, it seems unlikely
179
that he would have concluded that such a class system would be fine
180
if it had developed naturally or the current state was abolished
181
while leaving the class structure intact (as we note in
182
<a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>,
183
Tucker recognised that even the <i>"freest competition"</i> was powerless
184
against the <i>"enormous concentration of wealth"</i> associated with modern
185
capitalism). [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, p. 121]
186
<p>
187
Therefore anarchists recognise that "free exchange" or "consent" in
188
unequal circumstances will reduce freedom as well as increasing inequality
189
between individuals and classes. In other words, as we discuss in
190
<a href="append133.html">section 3</a>, inequality will produce social relationships which are based on
191
hierarchy and domination, <b>not</b> freedom. As Noam Chomsky put it:
192
<p><blockquote>
193
<i>"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
194
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
195
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
196
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
197
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free
198
contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
199
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
200
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."</i> [<b>Noam Chomsky on
201
Anarchism</b>, interview with Tom Lane, December 23, 1996]
202
</blockquote><p>
203
Clearly, then, by its own arguments "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.
204
This should come as no surprise to anarchists. Anarchism, as a political
205
theory, was born when Proudhon wrote <b>What is Property?</b> specifically to
206
refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces
207
them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware
208
that in such circumstances property <i>"violates equality by the rights of
209
exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect
210
identity with robbery."</i> He, unsurprisingly, talks of the <i>"proprietor, to
211
whom [the worker] has sold and surrendered his liberty."</i> For Proudhon,
212
anarchy was <i>"the absence of a master, of a sovereign"</i> while <i>"proprietor"</i>
213
was <i>"synonymous"</i> with <i>"sovereign"</i> for he <i>"imposes his will as law, and
214
suffers neither contradiction nor control."</i> This meant that <i>"property
215
engenders despotism,"</i> as <i>"each proprietor is sovereign lord within the
216
sphere of his property."</i> [<b>What is Property</b>, p. 251, p. 130, p. 264
217
and pp. 266-7] It must also be stressed that Proudhon's classic work is
218
a lengthy critique of the kind of apologetics for private property
219
Rothbard espouses to salvage his ideology from its obvious contradictions.
220
<p>
221
Ironically, Rothbard repeats the same analysis as Proudhon but draws
222
the <b>opposite</b> conclusions and expects to be considered an anarchist!
223
Moreover, it seems equally ironic that "anarcho"-capitalism calls itself
224
"anarchist" while basing itself on the arguments that anarchism was
225
created in opposition to. As shown, "anarcho"-capitalism makes as much
226
sense as "anarcho-statism" -- an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. The
227
idea that "anarcho"-capitalism warrants the name "anarchist" is simply
228
false. Only someone ignorant of anarchism could maintain such a thing.
229
While you expect anarchist theory to show this to be the case, the
230
wonderful thing is that "anarcho"-capitalism itself does the same.
231
<p>
232
Little wonder Bob Black argues that <i>"[t]o demonise state authoritarianism
233
while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements
234
in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism
235
at its worst."</i> [<b>Libertarian as Conservative</b>] The similarities between
236
capitalism and statism are clear -- and so why "anarcho"-capitalism cannot
237
be anarchist. To reject the authority (the <i>"ultimate decision-making power"</i>)
238
of the state and embrace that of the property owner indicates not only a
239
highly illogical stance but one at odds with the basic principles of anarchism.
240
This whole-hearted support for wage labour and capitalist property rights
241
indicates that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists because they do
242
not reject all forms of <b>archy.</b> They obviously support the hierarchy
243
between boss and worker (wage labour) and landlord and tenant. Anarchism,
244
by definition, is against all forms of archy, including the hierarchy
245
generated by capitalist property. To ignore the obvious archy associated
246
with capitalist property is highly illogical.
247
<p>
248
In addition, we must note that such inequalities in power and wealth
249
will need "defending" from those subject to them ("anarcho"-capitalists
250
recognise the need for private police and courts to defend property
251
from theft -- and, anarchists add, to defend the theft and despotism
252
associated with property!). Due to its support of private property (and
253
thus authority), "anarcho"-capitalism ends up retaining a state in its
254
"anarchy"; namely a <b>private</b> state whose existence its proponents
255
attempt to deny simply by refusing to call it a state, like an ostrich
256
hiding its head in the sand (see <a href="append136.html">section 6</a> for more on this and why
257
"anarcho"-capitalism is better described as "private state" capitalism).
258
As Albert Meltzer put it:
259
<p><blockquote>
260
<i>"Common-sense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with
261
a 'State' . . . but it could not dispense with organised government,
262
or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and
263
others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism'
264
dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with
265
Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie
266
. . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its
267
disposal to maintain class privileges, either form the State itself
268
or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited
269
State -- that us, one in which the State has one function, to protect
270
the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as
271
cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another
272
purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in
273
avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it."</i> [<b>Anarchism:
274
Arguments For and Against</b>, p. 50]
275
</blockquote><p>
276
For anarchists, this need of capitalism for some kind of state is
277
unsurprising. For <i>"Anarchy without socialism seems equally as impossible
278
to us [as socialism without anarchy], for in such a case it could not be
279
other than the domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in
280
motion right away the organisation and consolidation of this domination;
281
that is to the constitution of government."</i> [Errico Malatesta, <b>Life and
282
Ideas</b>, p. 148] Because of this, the "anarcho"-capitalist rejection of
283
anarchist ideas on capitalist property economics and the need for
284
equality, they cannot be considered anarchists or part of the anarchist
285
tradition.
286
<p>
287
Thus anarchism is far more than the common dictionary definition
288
of "no government" -- it also entails being against all forms of
289
<b>archy</b>, including those generated by capitalist property. This
290
is clear from the roots of the word "anarchy." As we noted
291
in <a href="secA1.html">section A.1</a>, the word anarchy means "no rulers" or "contrary
292
to authority." As Rothbard himself acknowledges, the property
293
owner is the ruler of their property and, therefore, those who
294
use it. For this reason "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be considered as
295
a form of anarchism -- a real anarchist must logically oppose
296
the authority of the property owner along with that of the state.
297
As "anarcho"-capitalism does not explicitly (or implicitly, for
298
that matter) call for economic arrangements that will end wage
299
labour and usury it cannot be considered anarchist or part of the
300
anarchist tradition.
301
<p>
302
Political theories should be identified by their actual features and
303
history rather than labels. Once we recognise that, we soon find out that
304
"anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists
305
are not part of the same movement or tradition. Their ideas and aims
306
are in direct opposition to those of all kinds of anarchists.
307
<p>
308
While anarchists have always opposed capitalism, "anarcho"-capitalists
309
have embraced it. And due to this embrace their "anarchy" will be marked
310
by extensive differences in wealth and power, differences that will show
311
themselves up in relationships based upon subordination and hierarchy
312
(such as wage labour), <b>not</b> freedom (little wonder that Proudhon
313
argued that <i>"property is despotism"</i> -- it creates authoritarian and
314
hierarchical relationships between people in a similar way to statism).
315
<p>
316
Their support for "free market" capitalism ignores the impact of wealth
317
and power on the nature and outcome of individual decisions within the
318
market (see sections <a href="append132.html">2</a> and
319
<a href="append133.html">3</a> for further discussion). For example,
320
as we indicate in sections <a href="secJ5.html#secj510">J.5.10</a>,
321
<a href="secJ5.html#secj511">J.5.11</a> and <a href="secJ5.html#secj512">J.5.12</a>, wage labour is less
322
efficient than self-management in production but due to the structure and
323
dynamics of the capitalist market, "market forces" will actively discourage
324
self-management due to its empowering nature for workers. In other words,
325
a developed capitalist market will promote hierarchy and unfreedom in
326
production in spite of its effects on individual workers and their
327
wants (see also <a href="append1310.html#secf102">section 10.2</a>). Thus "free market" capitalism tends
328
to re-enforce inequalities of wealth and power, <b>not</b> eliminate them.
329
<p>
330
Furthermore, any such system of (economic and social) power will require
331
extensive force to maintain it and the "anarcho"-capitalist system of
332
competing "defence firms" will simply be a new state, enforcing
333
capitalist power, property rights and law.
334
<p>
335
Overall, the lack of concern for meaningful freedom within production and
336
the effects of vast differences in power and wealth within society as a
337
whole makes "anarcho"-capitalism little better than "anarchism for the rich."
338
Emma Goldman recognised this when she argued that <i>"'Rugged individualism'
339
has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters . . . in whose name
340
political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as
341
virtues while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom . . .
342
is denounced as . . . evil in the name of that same individualism."</i>
343
[<b>Red Emma Speaks</b>, p. 112] And, as such, is no anarchism at all.
344
<p>
345
So, unlike anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists do not seek the <i>"abolition
346
of the proletariat"</i> (to use Proudhon's expression) via changing capitalist
347
property rights and institutions. Thus the "anarcho"-capitalist and the
348
anarchist have different starting positions and opposite ends in mind
349
and so they cannot be considered part of the same (anarchist) tradition.
350
As we discuss further in later sections, the "anarcho"-capitalist
351
claims to being anarchists are bogus simply because they reject so much
352
of the anarchist tradition as to make what they do accept non-anarchist
353
in theory and practice. Little wonder Peter Marshall said that <i>"few
354
anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist
355
camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and
356
social justice."</i> [<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 565]
357
358
<a name="secf11"><h2>1.1 Why is the failure to renounce hierarchy the Achilles Heel of right-wing libertarianism</h2>
359
360
Any capitalist system will produce vast differences in economic (and social)
361
wealth and power. As we argue in <a href="append133.html#secf31">section 3.1</a>, such differences will
362
reflect themselves in the market and any "free" contracts agreed there
363
will create hierarchical relationships. Thus capitalism is marked by
364
hierarchy (see <a href="secB1.html#secb12">section B.1.2</a>) and, unsurprisingly, right-libertarians
365
and "anarcho"-capitalists fail to oppose such "free market" generated
366
hierarchy.
367
<p>
368
Both groups approve of it in the capitalist workplace or rented accommodation
369
and the right-Libertarians also approve of it in a 'minimal' state to protect
370
private property ("anarcho"-capitalists, in contrast, approve of the use
371
of private defence firms to protect property). But the failure of these
372
two movements to renounce hierarchy is their weakest point. For
373
anti-authoritarianism has sunk deep roots into the modern psyche,
374
as a legacy of the sixties.
375
<p>
376
Many people who do not even know what anarchism is have been profoundly
377
affected by the personal liberation and counterculture movements of the
378
past thirty years, epitomised by the popular bumper sticker, <i>"Question
379
Authority."</i> As a result, society now tolerates much more choice than ever
380
before in matters of religion, sexuality, art, music, clothing, and other
381
components of lifestyle. We need only recall the conservatism that reigned
382
in such areas during the fifties to see that the idea of liberty has made
383
tremendous advances in just a few decades.
384
<p>
385
Although this liberatory impulse has so far been confined almost entirely
386
to the personal and cultural realms, it may yet be capable of spilling
387
over and affecting economic and political institutions, provided it
388
continues to grow. The Right is well aware of this, as seen in its ongoing
389
campaigns for "family values," school prayer, suppression of women's
390
rights, fundamentalist Christianity, sexual abstinence before marriage,
391
and other attempts to revive the Ozzie-and-Harriet mindset of the Good Old
392
Days. This is where the efforts of "cultural anarchists" -- artists,
393
musicians, poets, and others -- are important in keeping alive the ideal
394
of personal freedom and resistance to authority as a necessary foundation
395
for economic and political restructuring.
396
<p>
397
Indeed, the libertarian right (as a whole) support restrictions on freedom
398
<b>as long as its not the state that is doing it</b>! Their support for
399
capitalism means that they have no problem with bosses dictating what
400
workers do during working hours (nor outside working hours, if the job
401
requires employees to take drug tests or not be gay in order to keep it).
402
If a private landlord or company decrees a mandatory rule or mode of
403
living, workers/tenets must "love it or leave it!" Of course, that the
404
same argument also applies to state laws is one hotly denied by
405
right-Libertarians -- a definite case of not seeing the wood for the
406
trees (see <a href="append132.html#secf23">section 2.3</a>).
407
<p>
408
Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist will argue, workers and tenants can
409
find a more liberal boss or landlord. This, however, ignores two key facts.
410
Firstly, being able to move to a more liberal state hardly makes state
411
laws less offensive (as they themselves will be the first to point out).
412
Secondly, looking for a new job or home is not that easy. Just a moving
413
to a new state can involve drastic upheavals, so change changing jobs
414
and homes. Moreover, the job market is usually a buyers market (it has
415
to be in capitalism, otherwise profits are squeezed -- see sections
416
<a href="secC7.html">C.7</a>
417
and <a href="append1310.html#secf102">10.2</a>) and this means that workers are not usually in a position
418
(unless they organise) to demand increased liberties at work.
419
<p>
420
It seems somewhat ironic, to say the least, that right-libertarians
421
place rights of property over the rights of self-ownership, even though
422
(according to their ideology) self-ownership is the foundational right
423
from which property rights are derived. Thus in right-libertarianism the
424
rights of property owners to discriminate and govern the property-less
425
are more important than the freedom from discrimination (i.e. to be
426
yourself) or the freedom to govern oneself at all times.
427
<p>
428
So, when it boils down to it, right-libertarians are not really bothered
429
about restrictions on liberty and, indeed, they will defend private
430
restrictions on liberty with all their might. This may seem a strange
431
position for self-proclaimed "libertarians" to take, but it flows
432
naturally from their definition of freedom (see
433
<a href="append132.html">section 2</a> for a
434
full discussion of this). but by not attacking hierarchy beyond certain
435
forms of statism, the 'libertarian' right fundamentally undermines its
436
claim to be libertarian. Freedom cannot be compartmentalised, but is
437
holistic. The denial of liberty in, say, the workplace, quickly results
438
in its being denied elsewhere in society (due to the impact of the
439
inequalities it would produce) , just as the degrading effects of wage
440
labour and the hierarchies with which is it bound up are felt by the worker
441
outside work.
442
<p>
443
Neither the Libertarian Party nor so-called "anarcho"-capitalism is
444
<b>genuinely</b> anti-authoritarian, as those who are truly dedicated to
445
liberty must be.
446
447
<a name="secf12"><h2>1.2 How libertarian is right-Libertarian theory?</h2>
448
449
The short answer is, not very. Liberty not only implies but also requires
450
independent, critical thought (indeed, anarchists would argue that critical
451
thought requires free development and evolution and that it is precisely
452
<b>this</b> which capitalist hierarchy crushes). For anarchists a libertarian
453
theory, if it is to be worthy of the name, must be based upon critical
454
thought and reflect the key aspect that characterises life - change and the
455
ability to evolve. To hold up dogma and base "theory" upon assumptions (as
456
opposed to facts) is the opposite of a libertarian frame of mind. A
457
libertarian theory must be based upon reality and recognise the need
458
for change and the existence of change. Unfortunately, right-Libertarianism
459
is marked more by ideology than critical analysis.
460
<p>
461
Right-Libertarianism is characterised by a strong tendency of creating
462
theories based upon assumptions and deductions from these axioms (for a
463
discussion on the pre-scientific nature of this methodology and of its
464
dangers, see the <a href="append131.html#secf13">next section</a>). Robert Nozick, for example, in <b>Anarchy,
465
State, and Utopia</b> makes no attempt to provide a justification of the
466
property rights his whole theory is based upon. His main assumption is
467
that <i>"[i]ndividuals have rights, and there are certain things no person
468
or group may do to them (without violating their rights)."</i> [<b>Anarchy,
469
State and Utopia</b>, p. ix] While this does have its intuitive appeal,
470
it is not much to base a political ideology upon. After all, what rights
471
people consider as valid can be pretty subjective and have constantly
472
evolved during history. To say that "individuals have rights" is to open up
473
the question "what rights?" Indeed, as we argue in greater length in
474
<a href="append132.html">section 2</a>, such a rights based system as Nozick desires can and does lead to
475
situations developing in which people "consent" to be exploited and
476
oppressed and that, intuitively, many people consider supporting the
477
"violation" of these "certain rights" (by creating other ones) simply
478
because of their evil consequences.
479
<p>
480
In other words, starting from the assumption "people have [certain] rights"
481
Nozick constructs a theory which, when faced with the reality of unfreedom
482
and domination it would create for the many, justifies this unfreedom
483
as an expression of liberty. In other words, regardless of the outcome,
484
the initial assumptions are what matter. Nozick's intuitive rights system
485
can lead to some very non-intuitive outcomes.
486
<p>
487
And does Nozick prove the theory of property rights he assumes? He states
488
that <i>"we shall not formulate [it] here."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 150] Moreover, it
489
is not formulated anywhere else in his book. And if it is not formulated,
490
what is there to defend? Surely this means that his Libertarianism is
491
without foundations? As Jonathan Wolff notes, Nozick's <i>"Libertarian property
492
rights remain substantially undefended."</i> [<b>Robert Nozick: Property, Justice
493
and the Minimal State</b>, p. 117] Given that the right to acquire property
494
is critical to his whole theory you would think it important enough to go
495
into in some detail (or at least document). After all, unless he provides us
496
with a firm basis for property rights then his entitlement theory is nonsense
497
as no one has the right to (private) property.
498
<p>
499
It could be argued that Nozick <b>does</b> present enough information to allow
500
us to piece together a possible argument in favour of property rights
501
based on his modification of the <i>"Lockean Proviso"</i> (although he does
502
not point us to these arguments). However, assuming this is the case,
503
such a defence actually fails (see <a href="secB3.html#secb34">
504
section B.3.4</a> for more on this). If individuals <b>do</b> have rights, these rights do not include property rights
505
in the form Nozick assumes (but does not prove). Nozick appears initially
506
convincing because what he assumes with regards to property is a normal
507
feature of the society we are in (we would be forgiven when we note here
508
that feeble arguments pass for convincing when they are on the same side
509
as the prevailing sentiment).
510
<p>
511
Similarly, both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand (who is infamous for repeating
512
<i>"A is A"</i> ad infinitum) do the same - base their ideologies on assumptions
513
(see <a href="append1311.html">section 11</a> for more on this).
514
<p>
515
Therefore, we see that most of the leading right-Libertarian ideologues
516
base themselves on assumptions about what "Man" is or the rights they
517
should have (usually in the form that people have (certain) rights because
518
they are people). From these theorems and assumptions they build their
519
respective ideologies, using logic to deduce the conclusions that their
520
assumptions imply. Such a methodology is unscientific and, indeed, a relic
521
of religious (pre-scientific) society (see <a href="append131.html#secf13">next section</a>) but, more
522
importantly, can have negative effects on maximising liberty. This is
523
because this "methodology" has distinct problems. Murray Bookchin
524
argues:
525
<p><blockquote>
526
<i>"Conventional reason rests on identity, not change; its fundamental
527
principle is that <b>A equals A,</b> the famous 'principle of identity,' which
528
means that any given phenomenon can be only itself and cannot be other than
529
what we immediately perceive it to be at a given moment in time. It does not
530
address the problem of change. A human being is an infant at one time, a
531
child at another, an adolescent at still another, and finally a youth and
532
an adult. When we analyse an infant by means of conventional reason, we
533
are not exploring what it is <b>becoming</b> in the process of developing into
534
a child."</i> [<i>"A Philosophical Naturalism"</i>, <b>Society and Nature</b> No.2, p. 64]
535
</blockquote><p>
536
In other words, right-Libertarian theory is based upon ignoring the
537
fundamental aspect of life - namely <b>change</b> and <b>evolution.</b> Perhaps
538
it will be argued that identity also accounts for change by including
539
potentiality -- which means, that we have the strange situation that
540
A can <b>potentially</b> be A! If A is not actually A, but only has the
541
potential to be A, then A is not A. Thus to include change is to
542
acknowledge that A does not equal A -- that individuals and humanity
543
evolves and so what constitutes A also changes. To maintain identity
544
and then to deny it seems strange.
545
<p>
546
That change is far from the "A is A" mentality can be seen from Murray
547
Rothbard who goes so far as to state that <i>"one of the notable attributes
548
of natural law"</i> is <i>"its applicability to all men [sic!], regardless of
549
time or place. Thus ethical law takes its place alongside physical or
550
'scientific' natural laws."</i> [<b>The Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 42] Apparently
551
the "nature of man" is the only living thing in nature that does not evolve
552
or change! Of course, it could be argued that by "natural law" Rothbard is
553
only referring to his method of deducing his (and, we stress, they are
554
just his -- not natural) "ethical laws" -- but his methodology starts
555
by assuming certain things about "man." Whether these assumptions seem
556
far or not is besides the point, by using the term "natural law" Rothbard
557
is arguing that any actions that violate <b>his</b> ethical laws are somehow
558
"against nature" (but if they were against nature, they could not occur
559
Procrustean bed for humanity (as Rothbard's ideology shows).
560
<p>
561
So, as can be seen, many leading right-Libertarians place great store
562
by the axiom "A is A" or that "man" has certain rights simply because
563
"he" is a "man". And as Bookchin points out, such conventional reason
564
<i>"doubtless plays an indispensable role in mathematical thinking and
565
mathematical sciences . . . and in the nuts-and-bolts of dealing with
566
everyday life"</i> and so is essential to <i>"understand or design mechanical
567
entities."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p.67] But the question arises, is such reason
568
useful when considering people and other forms of life?
569
<p>
570
Mechanical entities are but one (small) aspect of human life. Unfortunately
571
for right-Libertarians (and fortunately for the rest of humanity), human
572
beings are <b>not</b> mechanical entities but instead are living, breathing,
573
feeling, hoping, dreaming, <b>changing</b> living organisms. They are not
574
mechanical entities and any theory that uses reason based on such
575
(non-living) entities will flounder when faced with living ones. In
576
other words, right-Libertarian theory treats people as the capitalist
577
system tries to -- namely as commodities, as things. Instead of human
578
beings, whose ideas, ideals and ethics change, develop and grow, capitalism
579
and capitalist ideologues try to reduce human life to the level of corn or
580
iron (by emphasising the unchanging "nature" of man and their starting
581
assumptions/rights).
582
<p>
583
This can be seen from their support for wage labour, the reduction of
584
human activity to a commodity on the market. While paying lip service
585
to liberty and life, right-libertarianism justifies the commodification
586
of labour and life, which within a system of capitalist property rights
587
can result in the treating of people as means to an end as opposed
588
to an end in themselves (see sections <a href="append132.html">2</a> and <a href="append133.html#secf31">3.1</a>).
589
<p>
590
And as Bookchin points out, <i>"in an age of sharply conflicting values and
591
emotionally charges ideals, such a way of reasoning is often repellent.
592
Dogmatism, authoritarianism, and fear seem all-pervasive."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 68]
593
Right-Libertarianism provides more than enough evidence for Bookchin's
594
summary with its support for authoritarian social relationships, hierarchy
595
and even slavery (see <a href="append132.html">section 2</a>).
596
<p>
597
This mechanical viewpoint is also reflected in their lack of appreciation
598
that social institutions and relationships evolve over time and, sometimes,
599
fundamentally change. This can best be seen from property. Right-libertarians
600
fail to see that over time (in the words of Proudhon) property <i>"changed
601
its nature."</i> Originally, <i>"the word <b>property</b> was synonymous with . . .
602
<b>individual possession</b>"</i> but it became more <i>"complex"</i> and turned into
603
<b>private property</b> -- <i>"the right to use it by his neighbour's labour."</i>
604
The changing of use-rights to (capitalist) property rights created relations
605
of domination and exploitation between people absent before. For the
606
right-Libertarian, both the tools of the self-employed artisan and the
607
capital of a transnational corporation are both forms of "property" and
608
(so) basically identical. In practice, of course, the social relations
609
they create and the impact they have on society are totally different.
610
Thus the mechanical mind-set of right-Libertarianism fails to understand
611
how institutions, like property, evolve and come to replace whatever
612
freedom enhancing features they had with oppression (indeed, von Mises
613
argued that <i>"[t]here may possibly be a difference of opinion about
614
whether a particular institution is socially beneficial or harmful. But
615
once it has been judged [by whom, we ask] beneficial, one can no longer
616
contend that, for some inexplicable reason, it must be condemned as
617
immoral"</i> [<b>Liberalism</b>, p. 34] So much for evolution and change!).
618
<p>
619
Anarchism, in contrast, is based upon the importance of critical thought
620
informed by an awareness that life is in a constant process of change. This
621
means that our ideas on human society must be informed by the facts, not by
622
what we wish was true. For Bookchin, an evaluation of conventional wisdom
623
(as expressed in <i>"the law of identity"</i>) is essential and its conclusions
624
have <i>"enormous importance for how we behave as ethical beings, the nature
625
of nature, and our place in the natural world. Moreover. . . these issues
626
directly affect the kind of society, sensibility, and lifeways we wish to
627
foster."</i> [Bookchin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 69-70]
628
<p>
629
Bookchin is correct. While anarchists oppose hierarchy in the name of
630
liberty, right-libertarians support authority and hierarchy, all of which
631
deny freedom and restrict individual development. This is unsurprising
632
because the right-libertarian ideology rejects change and critical thought
633
based upon the scientific method and so is fundamentally <b>anti-life</b> in
634
its assumptions and <b>anti-human</b> in its method. Far from being a libertarian
635
set of ideas, right-Libertarianism is a mechanical set of dogmas that deny
636
the fundamental nature of life (namely change) and of individuality (namely
637
critical thought and freedom). Moreover, in practice their system of
638
(capitalist) rights would soon result in extensive restrictions on liberty
639
and authoritarian social relationships (see sections <a href="append132.html">2</a> and <a href="append133.html">3</a>) -- a
640
strange result of a theory proclaiming itself "libertarian" but one
641
consistent with its methodology.
642
<p>
643
From a wider viewpoint, such a rejection of liberty by right-libertarians
644
is unsurprising. They do, after all, support capitalism. Capitalism
645
produces an inverted set of ethics, one in which capital (dead labour) is
646
more important that people (living labour). After all, workers are usually
647
easier to replace than investments in capital and the person who owns
648
capital commands the person who "only" owns his life and productive
649
abilities. And as Oscar Wilde once noted, crimes against property <i>"are
650
the crimes that the English law, valuing what a man has more than what
651
a man is, punishes with the harshest and most horrible severity."</i> [<b>The
652
Soul of Man Under Socialism</b>]
653
<p>
654
This mentality is reflected in right-libertarianism when it claims that
655
stealing food is a crime while starving to death (due to the action of
656
market forces/power and property rights) is no infringement of your rights
657
(see <a href="append134.html#secf42">section 4.2</a> for a similar argument with regards to water). It can
658
also be seen when right-libertarian's claim that the taxation <i>"of earnings
659
from labour"</i> (e.g. of one dollar from a millionaire) is <i>"<b>on a par with</b>
660
forced labour"</i> [Nozick, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 169] while working in a sweatshop
661
for 14 hours a day (enriching said millionaire) does not affect your
662
liberty as you "consent" to it due to market forces (although, of course,
663
many rich people have earned their money <b>without</b> labouring themselves --
664
their earnings derive from the wage labour of others so would taxing
665
those, non-labour, earnings be "forced labour"?) Interestingly, the
666
Individualist Anarchist Ben Tucker argued that an income tax was <i>"a
667
recognition of the fact that industrial freedom and equality of
668
opportunity no longer exist here [in the USA in the 1890s] even in
669
the imperfect state in which they once did exist"</i> [quoted by James
670
Martin, <b>Men Against the State</b>, p. 263] which suggests a somewhat
671
different viewpoint on this matter than Nozick or Rothbard.
672
<p>
673
That capitalism produces an inverted set of ethics can be seen when the
674
Ford produced the Pinto. The Pinto had a flaw in it which meant that if
675
it was hit in a certain way in a crash the fuel tank exploded. The Ford
676
company decided it was more "economically viable" to produce that car and
677
pay damages to those who were injured or the relatives of those who died
678
than pay to change the invested capital. The needs for the owners of
679
capital to make a profit came before the needs of the living. Similarly,
680
bosses often hire people to perform unsafe work in dangerous conditions
681
and fire them if they protest. Right-libertarian ideology is the
682
philosophical equivalent. Its dogma is "capital" and it comes before
683
life (i.e. "labour").
684
<p>
685
As Bakunin once put it, <i>"you will always find the idealists in the very
686
act of practical materialism, while you will see the materialists pursuing
687
and realising the most grandly ideal aspirations and thoughts."</i> [<b>God
688
and the State</b>, p. 49] Hence we see right "libertarians" supporting
689
sweat shops and opposing taxation -- for, in the end, money (and the
690
power that goes with it) counts far more in that ideology than ideals
691
such as liberty, individual dignity, empowering, creative and productive
692
work and so forth for all. The central flaw of right-libertarianism is
693
that it does not recognise that the workings of the capitalist market can
694
easily ensure that the majority end up becoming a resource for others in
695
ways far worse than that associated with taxation. The legal rights
696
of self-ownership supported by right-libertarians does not mean that
697
people have the ability to avoid what is in effect enslavement to
698
another (see sections <a href="append132.html">2</a> and <a href="append133.html">3</a>).
699
<p>
700
Right-Libertarian theory is not based upon a libertarian methodology or
701
perspective and so it is hardly surprising it results in support for
702
authoritarian social relationships and, indeed, slavery (see
703
<a href="append132.html#secf26">section 2.6</a>).
704
705
<a name="secf13"><h2>1.3 Is right-Libertarian theory scientific in nature?</h2>
706
707
Usually, no. The scientific approach is <b>inductive,</b> much of the
708
right-libertarian approach is <b>deductive.</b> The first draws generalisations
709
from the data, the second applies preconceived generalisations to the data.
710
A completely deductive approach is pre-scientific, however, which is why
711
many right-Libertarians cannot legitimately claim to use a scientific
712
method. Deduction does occur in science, but the generalisations are
713
primarily based on other data, not <i>a priori</i> assumptions, and are checked
714
against data to see if they are accurate. Anarchists tend to fall into the
715
inductive camp, as Kropotkin put it:
716
<p><blockquote>
717
<i>"Precisely this natural-scientific method applied to economic facts,
718
enables us to prove that the so-called 'laws' of middle-class sociology,
719
including also their political economy, are not laws at all, but
720
simply guesses, or mere assertions which have never been verified
721
at all."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets</b>, p. 153]
722
</blockquote><p>
723
The idea that natural-scientific methods can be applied to economic and
724
social life is one that many right-libertarians reject. Instead they
725
favour the deductive (pre-scientific) approach (this we must note is
726
not limited purely to Austrian economists, many more mainstream
727
capitalist economists also embrace deduction over induction).
728
<p>
729
The tendency for right-Libertarianism to fall into dogmatism (or <i>a priori</i>
730
theorems, as they call it) and its implications can best be seen from the
731
work of Ludwig von Mises and other economists from the right-Libertarian
732
"Austrian school." Of course, not all right-libertarians necessarily
733
subscribe to this approach (Murray Rothbard for one did) but its use by
734
so many leading lights of both schools of thought is significant and
735
worthy of comment. And as we are concentrating on <b>methodology</b> it is
736
not essential to discuss the starting assumptions. The assumptions (such
737
as, to use Rothbard's words, the Austrian's <i>"fundamental axiom that
738
individual human beings act"</i>) may be correct, incorrect or incomplete --
739
but the method of using them advocated by von Mises ensures that such
740
considerations are irrelevant.
741
<p>
742
Von Mises (a leading member of the Austrian school of economics) begins by
743
noting that social and economic theory <i>"is not derived from experience; it
744
is prior to experience..."</i> Which is back to front. It is obvious that
745
experience of capitalism is necessary in order to develop a viable theory
746
about how it works. Without the experience, any theory is just a flight of
747
fantasy. The actual specific theory we develop is therefore derived from
748
experience, informed by it and will have to get checked against reality
749
to see if it is viable. This is the scientific method - any theory must
750
be checked against the facts. However, von Mises goes on to argue at length that <i>"no kind of experience
751
can ever force us to discard or modify <b>a priori</b> theorems; they are
752
logically prior to it and cannot be either proved by corroborative
753
experience or disproved by experience to the contrary . . ."</i>
754
<p>
755
And if this does not do justice to a full exposition of the phantasmagoria
756
of von Mises' <i>a priorism</i>, the reader may take some joy (or horror) from
757
the following statement:
758
<p><blockquote>
759
<i>"If a contradiction appears between a theory and experience, <b>we must
760
always assume</b> that a condition pre-supposed by the theory was not
761
present, or else there is some error in our observation. The disagreement
762
between the theory and the facts of experience frequently forces us to think
763
through the problems of the theory again. <b>But so long as a rethinking of
764
the theory uncovers no errors in our thinking, we are not entitled to doubt
765
its truth</b>"</i> [emphasis added -- the quotes presented here are cited
766
in <b>Ideology and Method in Economics</b> by Homa Katouzian, pp. 39-40]
767
<p></blockquote>
768
In other words, if reality is in conflict with your ideas, do not adjust
769
your views because reality must be at fault! The scientific method would
770
be to revise the theory in light of the facts. It is not scientific to
771
reject the facts in light of the theory! This anti-scientific perspective
772
is at the heart of his economics as experience <i>"can never . . . prove or
773
disprove any particular theorem"</i>:
774
<p><blockquote><i>
775
"What assigns economics to its peculiar and unique position in the
776
orbit of pure knowledge and of the practical utilisation of knowledge
777
is the fact that its particular theorems are not open to any verification
778
or falsification on the grounds of experience . . .. . . The ultimate
779
yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely
780
reason unaided by experience."</i> [<b>Human Action</b>, p. 858]
781
<p></blockquote>
782
Von Mises rejects the scientific approach as do all Austrian Economists.
783
Murray Rothbard states approvingly that <i>"Mises indeed held not only that
784
economic theory does not need to be 'tested' by historical fact but also
785
that it <b>cannot</b> be so tested."</i> [<i>"Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian
786
Economics"</i> in <b>The Foundation of Modern Austrian Economics</b>, p. 32]
787
Similarly, von Hayek wrote that economic theories can <i>"never be verified
788
or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the
789
presence of our assumptions in the particular case."</i> [<b>Individualism and
790
Economic Order</b>, p. 73]
791
<p>
792
This may seen somewhat strange to non-Austrians. How can we ignore reality
793
when deciding whether a theory is a good one or not? If we cannot evaluate
794
our ideas, how can we consider them anything bar dogma? The Austrian's
795
maintain that we cannot use historical evidence because every historical
796
situation is unique. Thus we cannot use <i>"complex heterogeneous historical
797
facts as if they were repeatable homogeneous facts"</i> like those in a
798
scientist's experiment [Rothbard, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 33]. While such a position
799
<b>does</b> have an element of truth about it, the extreme <i>a priorism</i> that
800
is drawn from this element is radically false (just as extreme empiricism
801
is also false, but for different reasons).
802
<p>
803
Those who hold such a position ensure that their ideas cannot be evaluated
804
beyond logical analysis. As Rothbard makes clear, <i>"since praxeology begins
805
with a true axiom, A, all that can be deduced from this axiom must also
806
be true. For if A implies be, and A is true, then B must also be true."</i>
807
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 19-20] But such an approach makes the search for truth a
808
game without rules. The Austrian economists (and other right-libertarians)
809
who use this method are free to theorise anything they want, without such
810
irritating constrictions as facts, statistics, data, history or experimental
811
confirmation. Their only guide is logic. But this is no different from what
812
religions do when they assert the logical existence of God. Theories
813
ungrounded in facts and data are easily spun into any belief a person
814
wants. Starting assumptions and trains of logic may contain inaccuracies
815
so small as to be undetectable, yet will yield entirely false conclusions.
816
<p>
817
In addition, trains of logic may miss things which are only brought
818
to light by actual experiences (after all, the human mind is not all
819
knowing or all seeing). To ignore actual experience is to loose that
820
input when evaluating a theory. Hence our comments on the irrelevance of
821
the assumptions used -- the methodology is such that incomplete or
822
incorrect assumptions or steps cannot be identified in light of experience.
823
This is because one way of discovering if a given chain of logic requires
824
checking is to test its conclusions against available evidence (although
825
von Mises did argue that the <i>"ultimate yardstick"</i> was <i>"solely reason unaided
826
by experience"</i>). If we <b>do</b> take experience into account and rethink a
827
given theory in the light of contradictory evidence, the problem
828
remains that a given logical chain may be correct, but incomplete
829
or concentrate on or stress inappropriate factors. In other words, our
830
logical deductions may be correct but our starting place or steps wrong
831
and as the facts are to be rejected in the light of the deductive method,
832
we cannot revise our ideas.
833
<p>
834
Indeed, this approach could result in discarding (certain forms of) human
835
behaviour as irrelevant (which the Austrian system claims using empirical
836
evidence does). For there are too many variables that can have an influence
837
upon individual acts to yield conclusive results explaining human behaviour.
838
Indeed, the deductive approach may ignore as irrelevant certain human
839
motivations which have a decisive impact on an outcome. There could be
840
a strong tendency to project "right-libertarian person" onto the rest of
841
society and history, for example, and draw inappropriate insights into the
842
way human society works or has worked. This can be seen, for example,
843
in attempts to claim pre-capitalist societies as examples of
844
"anarcho"-capitalism in action.
845
<p>
846
Moreover, deductive reasoning cannot indicate the relative significance
847
of assumptions or theoretical factors. That requires empirical study. It
848
could be that a factor considered important in the theory actually turns
849
out to have little effect in practice and so the derived axioms are so
850
weak as to be seriously misleading.
851
<p>
852
In such a purely ideal realm, observation and experience are distrusted
853
(when not ignored) and instead theory is the lodestone. Given the bias
854
of most theorists in this tradition, it is unsurprising that this style
855
of economics can always be trusted to produce results proving free markets
856
to be the finest principle of social organisation. And, as an added
857
bonus, reality can be ignored as it is <b>never</b> "pure" enough according
858
to the assumptions required by the theory. It could be argued, because
859
of this, that many right-libertarians insulate their theories from
860
criticism by refusing to test them or acknowledge the results of such
861
testing (indeed, it could also be argued that much of right-libertarianism
862
is more a religion than a political theory as it is set-up in such a
863
way that it is either true or false, with this being determined not
864
by evaluating facts but by whether you accept the assumptions and
865
logical chains presented with them).
866
<p>
867
Strangely enough, while dismissing the "testability" of theories many
868
right-Libertarians (including Murray Rothbard) <b>do</b> investigate historical
869
situations and claim them as examples of how well their ideas work in
870
practice. But why does historical fact suddenly become useful when it
871
can be used to bolster the right-Libertarian argument? Any such example
872
is just as "complex" as any other and the good results indicated may
873
not be accountable to the assumptions and steps of the theory but to other
874
factors totally ignored by it. If economic (or other) theory is untestable
875
then <b>no</b> conclusions can be drawn from history, including claims for the
876
superiority of laissez-faire capitalism. You cannot have it both ways
877
as evidence that their ideas work.
878
<p>
879
Perhaps the Austrian desire to investigate history is not so strange
880
after all. Clashes with reality make a-priori deductive systems implode
881
as the falsifications run back up the deductive changes to shatter the
882
structure built upon the original axioms. Thus the desire to find <b>some</b>
883
example which proves their ideology must be tremendous. However, the
884
deductive a-priori methodology makes them unwilling to admit to being
885
mistaken -- hence their attempts to downplay examples which refute their
886
dogmas. Thus we have the desire for historical examples while at the same
887
time they have extensive ideological justifications that ensure reality
888
only enters their world-view when it agrees with them. In practice,
889
the latter wins as real-life refuses to be boxed into their dogmas
890
and deductions.
891
<p>
892
Of course it is sometimes argued that it is <b>complex</b> data that is
893
the problem. Let use assume that this is the case. It is argued that
894
when dealing with complex information it is impossible to use aggregate
895
data without first having more simple assumptions (i.e. that "humans
896
act"). Due to the complexity of the situation, it is argued, it is
897
impossible to aggregate data because this hides the individual activities
898
that creates it. Thus "complex" data cannot be used to invalidate
899
assumptions or theories. Hence, according to Austrians, the axioms
900
derived from the "simple fact" that "humans act" are the only basis
901
for thinking about the economy.
902
<p>
903
Such a position is false in two ways.
904
<p>
905
Firstly, the aggregation of data <b>does</b> allow us to understand complex
906
systems. If we look at a chair, we cannot find out whether it is
907
comfortable, its colour, whether it is soft or hard by looking at
908
the atoms that make it up. To suggest that you can is to imply the
909
existence of green, soft, comfortable atoms. Similarly with gases.
910
They are composed to countless individual atoms but scientists do
911
not study them by looking at those atoms and their actions. Within
912
limits, this is also valid for human action. For example, it would
913
be crazy to maintain from historical data that interest rates will
914
be a certain percentage a week but it is valid to maintain that
915
interest rates are known to be related to certain variables in certain
916
ways. Or that certain experiences will tend to result in certain forms
917
of psychological damage. General tendencies and "rules of thumb" can
918
be evolved from such study and these can be used to <b>guide</b> current
919
practice and theory. By aggregating data you can produce valid
920
information, rules of thumb, theories and evidence which would be
921
lost if you concentrated on "simple data" (such as "humans act").
922
Therefore, empirical study produces facts which vary across time
923
and place, and yet underlying and important patterns can be
924
generated (patterns which can be evaluated against <b>new</b> data
925
and improved upon).
926
<p>
927
Secondly, the simple actions themselves influence and are influenced
928
in turn by overall (complex) facts. People act in different ways in
929
different circumstances (something we can agree with Austrians about,
930
although we refuse to take it to their extreme position of rejecting
931
empirical evidence as such). To use simple acts to understand
932
complex systems means to miss the fact that these acts are not
933
independent of their circumstances. For example, to claim that the
934
capitalist market is "just" the resultant of bilateral exchanges
935
ignores the fact that the market activity shapes the nature and
936
form of these bilateral exchanges. The "simple" data is dependent
937
on the "complex" system -- and so the complex system <b>cannot</b> be
938
understood by looking at the simple actions in isolation. To do so
939
would be to draw incomplete and misleading conclusions (and it is
940
due to these interrelations that we argue that aggregate data should
941
be used critically). This is particularly important when looking at
942
capitalism, where the "simple" acts of exchange in the labour market
943
are dependent upon and shaped by circumstances outside these acts.
944
<p>
945
So to claim that (complex) data cannot be used to evaluate a theory
946
is false. Data can be useful when seeing whether a theory is confirmed by
947
reality. This is the nature of the scientific method -- you compare the
948
results expected by your theory to the facts and if they do not match you
949
check your facts <b>and</b> check your theory. This may involve revising the
950
assumptions, methodology and theories you use if the evidence is such as
951
to bring them into question. For example, if you claim that capitalism is
952
based on freedom but that the net result of capitalism is to produce
953
relations of domination between people then it would be valid to revise,
954
for example, your definition of freedom rather than deny that domination
955
restricts freedom (see <a href="append132.html">section 2</a> on this). But if actual experience is
956
to be distrusted when evaluating theory, we effectively place ideology
957
above people -- after all, how the ideology affects people in <b>practice</b>
958
is irrelevant as experiences cannot be used to evaluate the (logically
959
sound but actually deeply flawed) theory.
960
<p>
961
Moreover, there is a slight arrogance in the "Austrian" dismissal of
962
empirical evidence. If, as they argue, the economy is just too complex
963
to allow us to generalise from experience then how can one person
964
comprehend it sufficiently to create an economic ideology as the
965
Austrian's suggest? Surely no one mind (or series of minds) can
966
produce a model which accurately reflects such a complex system? To
967
suggest that one can deduce a theory for an exceedingly complex social
968
system from the theoretical work based on an analysis technique which
969
deliberately ignores that reality as being unreliable seems to require
970
a deliberate suspension of one's reasoning faculties. Of course, it
971
may be argued that such a task is possible, given a small enough subset
972
of economic activity. However, such a process is sure to lead its
973
practitioners astray as the subset is not independent of the whole
974
and, consequently, can be influenced in ways the ideologist does not
975
(indeed, cannot) take into account. Simply put, even the greatest mind
976
cannot comprehend the complexities of real life and so empirical
977
evidence needs to inform any theory seeking to describe and explain
978
it. To reject it is simply to retreat into dogmatism and ideology,
979
which is precisely what right-wing libertarians generally do.
980
<p>
981
Ultimately, this dismissal of empirical evidence seems little more
982
than self-serving. It's utility to the ideologist is obvious. It
983
allows them to speculate to their hearts content, building models of
984
the economy with no bearing to reality. Their models and the conclusions
985
it generates need never be bothered with reality -- nor the effects of
986
their dogma. Which shows its utility to the powerful. It allows them
987
to spout comments like "the free market benefits all" while the rich
988
get richer and allows them to brush aside any one who points out such
989
troublesome facts.
990
<p>
991
That this position is self-serving can be seen from the fact that most
992
right libertarians are very selective about applying von Mises' argument.
993
As a rule of thumb, it is only applied when the empirical evidence goes
994
against capitalism. In such circumstances the fact that the current
995
system is not a free market will also be mentioned. However, if the
996
evidence seems to bolster the case for propertarianism then empirical
997
evidence becomes all the rage. Needless to say, the fact that we do not
998
have a free market will be conveniently forgotten. Depending on the
999
needs of the moment, fundamental facts are dropped and retrieved to
1000
bolster the ideology.
1001
<p>
1002
As we indicated above (in <a href="append131.html#secf12">section 1.2</a>) and will discuss in more depth
1003
later (in <a href="append1311.html">section 11</a>) most of the leading right-Libertarian theorists
1004
base themselves on such deductive methodologies, starting from assumptions
1005
and "logically" drawing conclusions from them. The religious undertones
1006
of such methodology can best be seen from the roots of right-Libertarian
1007
"Natural law" theory.
1008
<p>
1009
Carole Pateman, in her analysis of Liberal contract theory, indicates
1010
the religious nature of the "Natural Law" argument so loved by the
1011
theorists of the "Radical Right." She notes that for Locke (the main source
1012
of the Libertarian Right's Natural Law cult) <i>"natural law"</i> was equivalent
1013
of <i>"God's Law"</i> and that <i>"God's law exists externally to and independently
1014
of individuals."</i> [<b>The Problem of Political Obligation</b>, p. 154] No role
1015
for critical thought there, only obedience. Most modern day "Natural Law"
1016
supporters forget to mention this religious undercurrent and instead
1017
talk of about "Nature" (or "the market") as the deity that creates Law,
1018
not God, in order to appear "rational." So much for science.
1019
<p>
1020
Such a basis in dogma and religion can hardly be a firm foundation for
1021
liberty and indeed "Natural Law" is marked by a deep authoritarianism:
1022
<p><blockquote>
1023
<i>"Locke's traditional view of natural law provided individual's with an
1024
external standard which they could recognise, but which they did not
1025
voluntarily choose to order their political life."</i> [Pateman, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 79]
1026
<p></blockquote>
1027
In <a href="append1311.html">section 11</a> we discuss the authoritarian nature of "Natural Law" and
1028
will not do so here. However, here we must point out the political
1029
conclusions Locke draws from his ideas. In Pateman's words, Locke believed that <i>"obedience lasts only as long as protection. His
1030
individuals are able to take action themselves to remedy their political
1031
lot. . . but this does not mean, as is often assumed, that Locke's theory
1032
gives direct support to present-day arguments for a right of civil
1033
disobedience. . . His theory allows for two alternatives only: either
1034
people go peacefully about their daily affairs under the protection of
1035
a liberal, constitutional government, or they are in revolt against a
1036
government which has ceased to be 'liberal' and has become arbitrary and
1037
tyrannical, so forfeiting its right to obedience."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 77]
1038
<p>
1039
Locke's "rebellion" exists purely to reform a <b>new</b> 'liberal' government, not
1040
to change the existing socio-economic structure which the 'liberal' government
1041
exists to protect. His theory, therefore, indicates the results of a priorism,
1042
namely a denial of any form of social dissent which may change the "natural
1043
law" as defined by Locke. This perspective can be found in
1044
Rothbard who lambasted the individualist anarchists for arguing that
1045
juries should judge the law as well as the facts. For Rothbard, the law
1046
would be drawn up by jurists and lawyers, not ordinary people (see
1047
<a href="append131.html#secf14">section 1.4</a> for details). The idea that those subject to laws should
1048
have a say in forming them is rejected in favour of elite rule. As
1049
von Mises put it:
1050
<p><blockquote><i>
1051
"The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the
1052
intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social
1053
and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men
1054
to make these ideologies palatable to the majority."</i> [<b>Human
1055
Action</b>, p. 864]
1056
<p></blockquote>
1057
Yet such a task would require massive propaganda work and would only,
1058
ultimately, succeed by removing the majority from any say in the
1059
running of society. Once that is done then we have to believe that
1060
the ruling elite will be altruistic in the extreme and not abuse
1061
their position to create laws and processes which defended what
1062
<b>they</b> thought was "legitimate" property, property rights and what
1063
constitutes "aggression." Which, ironically, contradicts the key
1064
capitalist notion that people are driven by self-gain. The obvious
1065
conclusion from such argument is that any right-libertarian regime
1066
would have to exclude change. If people can change the regime they
1067
are under they may change it in ways that right libertarian's do
1068
not support. The provision for ending amendments to the regime or
1069
the law would effectively ban most opposition groups or parties
1070
as, by definition, they could do nothing once in office (for
1071
minimal state "libertarians") or in the market for "defence"
1072
agencies (for "anarcho"-capitalists). How this differs from a
1073
dictatorship is hard to say -- after all, most dictatorships have
1074
parliamentary bodies which have no power but which can talk a lot.
1075
Perhaps the knowledge that it is <b>private</b> police enforcing <b>private</b>
1076
power will make those subject to the regime maximise their utility
1077
by keeping quiet and not protesting. Given this, von Mises' praise
1078
for fascism in the 1920s may be less contradictory than it first
1079
appears (see <a href="append136.html#secf65">section 6.5</a>) as it successfully "deterred democracy"
1080
by crushing the labour, socialist and anarchist movements across
1081
the world.
1082
<p>
1083
So, von Mises, von Hayek and most right-libertarians reject the scientific
1084
method in favour of ideological correctness -- if the facts contradict your
1085
theory then they can be dismissed as too "complex" or "unique". Facts,
1086
however, should inform theory and any theory's methodology should take
1087
this into account. To dismiss facts out of hand is to promote dogma.
1088
This is not to suggest that a theory should be modified very time new
1089
data comes along -- that would be crazy as unique situations <b>do</b> exist,
1090
data can be wrong and so forth -- but it does suggest that if your theory
1091
<b>continually</b> comes into conflict with reality, its time to rethink the
1092
theory and not assume that facts cannot invalidate it. A true libertarian
1093
would approach a contradiction between reality and theory by evaluating
1094
the facts available and changing the theory is this is required, not by
1095
ignoring reality or dismissing it as "complex".
1096
<p>
1097
Thus, much of right-Libertarian theory is neither libertarian nor scientific.
1098
Much of right-libertarian thought is highly axiomatic, being logically
1099
deduced from such starting axioms as <i>"self-ownership"</i> or <i>"no one should
1100
initiate force against another"</i>. Hence the importance of our discussion
1101
of von Mises as this indicates the dangers of this approach, namely the
1102
tendency to ignore/dismiss the consequences of these logical chains and,
1103
indeed, to justify them in terms of these axioms rather than from the
1104
facts. In addition, the methodology used is such as that it would be
1105
fair to argue that right-libertarians get to critique reality but reality
1106
can never be used to critique right-libertarianism -- for any empirical
1107
data presented as evidence as be dismissed as "too complex" or "unique"
1108
and so irrelevant (unless it can be used to support their claims, of
1109
course).
1110
<p>
1111
Hence W. Duncan Reekie's argument (quoting leading Austrian economist
1112
Israel Kirzner) that <i>"empirical work 'has the function of establishing
1113
the <b>applicability</b> of particular theorems, and thus <b>illustrating</b> their
1114
operation' . . . Confirmation of theory is not possible because there is no
1115
constants in human action, nor is it necessary because theorems themselves
1116
describe relationships logically developed from hypothesised conditions.
1117
Failure of a logically derived axiom to fit the facts does not render
1118
it invalid, rather it 'might merely indicate inapplicability' to the
1119
circumstances of the case.'"</i> [<b>Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty</b>, p. 31]
1120
<p>
1121
So, if facts confirm your theory, your theory is right. If facts do not
1122
confirm your theory, it is still right but just not applicable in this case!
1123
Which has the handy side effect of ensuring that facts can <b>only</b> be used to
1124
support the ideology, <b>never</b> to refute it (which is, according to this
1125
perspective, impossible anyway). As Karl Popper argued, a <i>"theory
1126
which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific."</i>
1127
[<b>Conjectures and Refutations</b>, p. 36] In other words
1128
(as we noted above), if
1129
reality contradicts your theory, ignore reality!
1130
<p>
1131
Kropotkin hoped <i>"that those who believe in [current economic doctrines]
1132
will themselves become convinced of their error as soon as they come to
1133
see the necessity of verifying their quantitative deductions by
1134
quantitative investigation."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 178] However, the Austrian
1135
approach builds so many barriers to this that it is doubtful that
1136
this will occur. Indeed, right-libertarianism, with its focus on exchange
1137
rather than its consequences, seems to be based upon justifying domination
1138
in terms of their deductions than analysing what freedom actually means
1139
in terms of human existence (see <a href="append132.html">section 2</a> for a fuller discussion).
1140
<p>
1141
The real question is why are such theories taken seriously and arouse such
1142
interest. Why are they not simply dismissed out of hand, given their
1143
methodology and the authoritarian conclusions they produce? The answer is,
1144
in part, that feeble arguments can easily pass for convincing when they
1145
are on the same side as the prevailing sentiment and social system. And, of
1146
course, there is the utility of such theories for ruling elites - <i>"[a]n
1147
ideological defence of privileges, exploitation, and private power will be
1148
welcomed, regardless of its merits."</i> [Noam Chomsky, <b>The Chomsky Reader</b>,
1149
p. 188]
1150
1151
<a name="secf14"><h2> 1.4 Is "anarcho"-capitalism a new form of individualist anarchism?</h2>
1152
1153
Some "anarcho"-capitalists shy away from the term, preferring such
1154
expressions as "market anarchist" or "individualist anarchist." This
1155
suggests that there is some link between their ideology and that of
1156
Tucker. However, the founder of "anarcho"-capitalism, Murray Rothbard,
1157
refused that label for, while <i>"strongly tempted,"</i> he could not do so
1158
because <i>"Spooner and Tucker have in a sense pre-empted that name for
1159
their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences."</i>
1160
Somewhat incredibly Rothbard argued that on the whole politically
1161
<i>"these differences are minor,"</i> economically <i>"the differences are
1162
substantial, and this means that my view of the consequences of
1163
putting our more of less common system into practice is very far from
1164
theirs."</i> [<i>"The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View"</i>, <b>Journal
1165
of Libertarian Studies</b>, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 7]
1166
<p>
1167
What an understatement! Individualist anarchists advocated an economic
1168
system in which there would have been very little inequality of wealth
1169
and so of power (and the accumulation of capital would have been minimal
1170
without profit, interest and rent). Removing this social and economic
1171
basis would result in <b>substantially</b> different political regimes. This
1172
can be seen from the fate of Viking Iceland, where a substantially
1173
communal and anarchistic system was destroyed from within by increasing
1174
inequality and the rise of tenant farming (see <a href="append139.html">section 9</a> for details).
1175
In other words, politics is not isolated from economics. As David
1176
Wieck put it, Rothbard <i>"writes of society as though some part of it
1177
(government) can be extracted and replaced by another arrangement while
1178
other things go on before, and he constructs a system of police and
1179
judicial power without any consideration of the influence of historical
1180
and economic context."</i> [<i>"Anarchist Justice,"</i> in <b>Nomos XIX</b>, Pennock
1181
and Chapman, eds., p. 227]
1182
<p>
1183
Unsurprisingly, the political differences he highlights <b>are</b> significant,
1184
namely <i>"the role of law and the jury system"</i> and <i>"the land question."</i>
1185
The former difference relates to the fact that the individualist anarchists
1186
<i>"allow[ed] each individual free-market court, and more specifically, each
1187
free-market jury, totally free rein over judicial decision."</i> This horrified
1188
Rothbard. The reason is obvious, as it allows real people to judge the law
1189
as well as the facts, modifying the former as society changes and evolves.
1190
For Rothbard, the idea that ordinary people should have a say in the law is
1191
dismissed. Rather, <i>"it would not be a very difficult task for Libertarian
1192
lawyers and jurists to arrive at a rational and objective code of libertarian
1193
legal principles and procedures."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 7-8] Of course, the fact that
1194
<i>"lawyers"</i> and <i>"jurists"</i> may have a radically different idea of what is just
1195
than those subject to their laws is not raised by Rothbard, never mind
1196
answered. While Rothbard notes that juries may defend the people against
1197
the state, the notion that they may defend the people against the authority
1198
and power of the rich is not even raised. That is why the rich have tended to
1199
oppose juries as well as popular assemblies.
1200
<p>
1201
Unsurprisingly, the few individualist anarchists that remained pointed this
1202
out. Laurance Labadie, the son of Tucker associate Joseph Labadie, argued
1203
in response to Rothbard as follows:
1204
<p><blockquote>
1205
<i>"Mere common sense would suggest that any court would be influenced
1206
by experience; and any free-market court or judge would in the very
1207
nature of things have some precedents guiding them in their instructions
1208
to a jury. But since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have
1209
considerable say about the heinousness of the offence in each case,
1210
realising that circumstances alter cases, and prescribing penalty
1211
accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and Tucker to be a more flexible
1212
and equitable administration of justice possible or feasible, human
1213
beings being what they are.. . .
1214
<p>
1215
"But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of
1216
Spooner and Tucker, and at the same time upholds <b>presumably in his
1217
courts</b> the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason
1218
for human contention and conflict, he would seem to be a man who
1219
chokes at a gnat while swallowing a camel."</i> [quoted by Mildred J.
1220
Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, <i>"Laurance Labadie: Keeper Of The Flame"</i>,
1221
pp. 116-30, <b>Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty</b>,
1222
Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 124]
1223
</blockquote><p>
1224
In other words, to exclude the general population from any say in the
1225
law and how it changes is hardly a <i>"minor"</i> difference! Particularly
1226
if you are proposing an economic system which is based on inequalities
1227
of wealth, power and influence and the means of accumulating more.
1228
It is like a supporter of the state saying that it is a <i>"minor"</i>
1229
difference if you favour a dictatorship rather than a democratically
1230
elected government. As Tucker argued, <i>"it is precisely in the
1231
tempering of the rigidity of enforcement that one of the chief
1232
excellences of Anarchism consists . . . under Anarchism all rules
1233
and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of
1234
juries, and that all disputes . . . will be submitted to juries
1235
which will judge not only the facts but the law, the justice of
1236
the law, its applicability to the given circumstances, and the
1237
penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction . . .
1238
under Anarchism the law . . . will be regarded as <b>just</b> in
1239
proportion to its flexibility, instead of now in proportion to
1240
its rigidity."</i> [<b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>, pp. 160-1] In
1241
others, the law will evolve to take into account changing social
1242
circumstances and, as a consequence, public opinion on specific
1243
events and rights. Tucker's position is fundamentally <b>democratic</b>
1244
and evolutionary while Rothbard's is autocratic and fossilised.
1245
<p>
1246
On the land question, Rothbard opposed the individualist position of
1247
"occupancy and use" as it <i>"would automatically abolish all rent
1248
payments for land."</i> Which was <b>precisely</b> why the individualist
1249
anarchists advocated it! In a predominantly rural economy, this
1250
would result in a significant levelling of income and social
1251
power as well as bolstering the bargaining position of non-land
1252
workers by reducing unemployment. He bemoans that landlords
1253
cannot charge rent on their <i>"justly-acquired private property"</i>
1254
without noticing that is begging the question as anarchists deny
1255
that this is <i>"justly-acquired"</i> land. Unsurprising, Rothbard
1256
considers <i>"the property theory"</i> of land ownership as John Locke's,
1257
ignoring the fact that the first self-proclaimed anarchist book
1258
was written to refute that kind of theory. His argument simply shows
1259
how far from anarchism his ideology is. For Rothbard, it goes
1260
without saying that the landlord's <i>"freedom of contract"</i> tops the
1261
worker's freedom to control their own work and live and, of course,
1262
their right to life. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 8 and p. 9] However, for
1263
anarchists, <i>"the land is indispensable to our existence,
1264
consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of
1265
appropriation."</i> [Proudhon, <b>What is Property?</b>, p. 107]
1266
<p>
1267
The reason question is why Rothbard considers this a <b>political</b>
1268
difference rather than an economic one. Unfortunately, he does not
1269
explain. Perhaps because of the underlying <b>socialist</b> perspective
1270
behind the anarchist position? Or perhaps the fact that feudalism
1271
and monarchism was based on the owner of the land being its ruler
1272
suggests a political aspect to the ideology best left unexplored?
1273
Given that the idea of grounding rulership on land ownership receded
1274
during the Middle Ages, it may be unwise to note that under
1275
"anarcho"-capitalism the landlord and capitalist would, likewise,
1276
be sovereign over the land <b>and</b> those who used it? As we noted
1277
in <a href="append131.html">section 1</a>, this is the conclusion that Rothbard does draw.
1278
As such, there <b>is</b> a political aspect to this difference.
1279
<p>
1280
Moreover. <i>"the expropriation of the mass of the people from the
1281
soil forms the basis of the capitalist mode of production."</i> [Marx,
1282
<b>Capital</b>, vol. 1, p. 934] For there are <i>"two ways of oppressing
1283
men: either directly by brute force, by physical violence; or
1284
indirectly by denying them the means of life and this reducing them
1285
to a state of surrender."</i> In the second case, government is <i>"an
1286
organised instrument to ensure that dominion and privilege will be
1287
in the hands of those who . . . have cornered all the means of life,
1288
first and foremost the land, which they make use of to keep the
1289
people in bondage and to make them work for their benefit."</i>
1290
[Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, p. 21] Privatising the coercive functions
1291
of said government hardly makes much difference.
1292
<p>
1293
Of course, Rothbard is simply skimming the surface. There are two
1294
main ways "anarcho"-capitalists differ from individualist anarchists.
1295
The first one is the fact that the individualist anarchists are
1296
socialists. The second is on whether equality is essential or not
1297
to anarchism. Each will be discussed in turn.
1298
<p>
1299
Unlike both Individualist (and social) anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists
1300
support capitalism (a "pure" free market type, which has never existed
1301
although it has been approximated occasionally). This means that they
1302
reject totally the ideas of anarchists with regards to property and
1303
economic analysis. For example, like all supporters of capitalists
1304
they consider rent, profit and interest as valid incomes. In contrast,
1305
all Anarchists consider these as exploitation and agree with the
1306
Individualist Anarchist Benjamin Tucker when he argued that
1307
<i>"<b>[w]hoever</b> contributes to production is alone entitled. <b>What</b>
1308
has no rights that <b>who</b> is bound to respect. <b>What</b> is a thing. <b>Who</b>
1309
is a person. Things have no claims; they exist only to be claimed. The
1310
possession of a right cannot be predicted of dead material, but only a
1311
living person."</i>[quoted by Wm. Gary Kline, <b>The Individualist Anarchists</b>,
1312
p. 73]
1313
<p>
1314
This, we must note, is the fundamental critique of the capitalist theory
1315
that capital is productive. In and of themselves, fixed costs do not
1316
create value. Rather value is creation depends on how investments are
1317
developed and used once in place. Because of this the Individualist
1318
Anarchists, like other anarchists, considered non-labour derived income
1319
as usury, unlike "anarcho"-capitalists. Similarly, anarchists reject
1320
the notion of capitalist property rights in favour of possession
1321
(including the full fruits of one's labour). For example, anarchists
1322
reject private ownership of land in favour of a "occupancy and use"
1323
regime. In this we follow Proudhon's <b>What is Property?</b> and argue that
1324
<i>"property is theft"</i>. Rothbard, as noted, rejected this perspective.
1325
<p>
1326
As these ideas are an <b>essential</b> part of anarchist politics, they cannot
1327
be removed without seriously damaging the rest of the theory. This can
1328
be seen from Tucker's comments that <i>"<b>Liberty</b> insists. . . [on] the abolition
1329
of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by
1330
man, and no more exploitation of man by man."</i> [cited by Eunice Schuster in
1331
<b>Native American Anarchism</b>, p. 140]. He indicates that anarchism has
1332
specific economic <b>and</b> political ideas, that it opposes capitalism along
1333
with the state. Therefore anarchism was never purely a "political" concept,
1334
but always combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to
1335
exploitation. The social anarchists made exactly the same point. Which
1336
means that when Tucker argued that <i>"<b>Liberty</b> insists on Socialism. . . -
1337
true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalence on earth of Liberty,
1338
Equality, and Solidarity"</i> he knew exactly what he was saying and meant it
1339
wholeheartedly. [<b>Instead of a Book</b>, p. 363]
1340
<p>
1341
So because "anarcho"-capitalists embrace capitalism and reject socialism,
1342
they cannot be considered anarchists or part of the anarchist tradition.
1343
<p>
1344
Which brings us nicely to the second point, namely a lack of concern for
1345
equality. In stark contrast to anarchists of all schools, inequality
1346
is not seen to be a problem with "anarcho"-capitalists (see <a href="append133.html">section 3</a>).
1347
However, it is a truism that not all "traders" are equally subject to the
1348
market (i.e. have the same market power). In many cases, a few have
1349
sufficient control of resources to influence or determine price and in
1350
such cases, all others must submit to those terms or not buy the commodity.
1351
When the commodity is labour power, even this option is lacking -- workers
1352
have to accept a job in order to live. As we argue in <a href="append1310.html#secf102">section 10.2</a>,
1353
workers are usually at a disadvantage on the labour market when compared
1354
to capitalists, and this forces them to sell their liberty in return for
1355
making profits for others. These profits increase inequality in society
1356
as the property owners receive the surplus value their workers produce.
1357
This increases inequality further, consolidating market power and so weakens
1358
the bargaining position of workers further, ensuring that even the freest
1359
competition possible could not eliminate class power and society (something
1360
B. Tucker recognised as occurring with the development of trusts within
1361
capitalism -- see <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>).
1362
<p>
1363
By removing the underlying commitment to abolish non-labour income, any
1364
"anarchist" capitalist society would have vast differences in wealth
1365
and so power. Instead of a government imposed monopolies in land, money
1366
and so on, the economic power flowing from private property and capital
1367
would ensure that the majority remained in (to use Spooner's words) <i>"the
1368
condition of servants"</i> (see sections <a href="append132.html">2</a> and
1369
<a href="append133.html#secf31">3.1</a> for more on this).
1370
The Individualist Anarchists were aware of this danger and so supported
1371
economic ideas that opposed usury (i.e. rent, profit and interest) and
1372
ensured the worker the full value of her labour. While not all of them
1373
called these ideas "socialist" it is clear that these ideas <b>are</b> socialist
1374
in nature and in aim (similarly, not all the Individualist Anarchists
1375
called themselves anarchists but their ideas are clearly anarchist in
1376
nature and in aim).
1377
<p>
1378
This combination of the political and economic is essential as they mutually
1379
reinforce each other. Without the economic ideas, the political ideas
1380
would be meaningless as inequality would make a mockery of them. As Kline
1381
notes, the Individualist Anarchists' <i>"proposals were designed to establish
1382
true equality of opportunity . . . and they expected this would result in
1383
a society without great wealth or poverty. In the absence of monopolistic
1384
factors which would distort competition, they expected a society largely
1385
of self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth between
1386
any of them since all would be required to live at their own expense and
1387
not at the expense of exploited fellow human beings."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 103-4]
1388
<p>
1389
Because of the evil effects of inequality on freedom, both social
1390
and individualist anarchists desired to create an environment in which
1391
circumstances would not drive people to sell their liberty to others
1392
at a disadvantage. In other words, they desired an equalisation of
1393
market power by opposing interest, rent and profit and capitalist
1394
definitions of private property. Kline summarises this by saying <i>"the
1395
American [individualist] anarchists exposed the tension existing in
1396
liberal thought between private property and the ideal of equal access.
1397
The Individual Anarchists were, at least, aware that existing conditions
1398
were far from ideal, that the system itself working against the majority
1399
of individuals in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital,
1400
the means to creation and accumulation of wealth, usually doomed a
1401
labourer to a life of exploitation. This the anarchists knew and they
1402
abhorred such a system."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 102]
1403
<p>
1404
And this desire for bargaining equality is reflected in their economic
1405
ideas and by removing these underlying economic ideas of the individualist
1406
anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalism makes a mockery of any ideas they
1407
do appropriate. Essentially, the Individualist Anarchists agreed with
1408
Rousseau that in order to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes you
1409
deprive people of the means to accumulate in the first place and
1410
<b>not</b> take away wealth from the rich. An important point which
1411
"anarcho"-capitalism fails to understand or appreciate.
1412
<p>
1413
There are, of course, overlaps between individualist anarchism and
1414
"anarcho"-capitalism, just as there are overlaps between it and Marxism
1415
(and social anarchism, of course). However, just as a similar analysis
1416
of capitalism does not make individualist anarchists Marxists, so
1417
apparent similarities between individualist anarchism does not make
1418
it a forerunner of "anarcho"-capitalism. For example, both schools
1419
support the idea of "free markets." Yet the question of markets is
1420
fundamentally second to the issue of property rights for what is
1421
exchanged on the market is dependent on what is considered legitimate
1422
property. In this, as Rothbard notes, individualist anarchists and
1423
"anarcho"-capitalists differ and different property rights produce
1424
different market structures and dynamics. This means that capitalism
1425
is not the only economy with markets and so support for markets cannot
1426
be equated with support for capitalism. Equally, opposition to markets
1427
is <b>not</b> the defining characteristic of socialism (as we note in
1428
<a href="secG2.html#secg21">section G.2.1</a>). As such, it <b>is</b> possible to be a market socialist
1429
(and many socialist are). This is because "markets" and "property" do
1430
not equate to capitalism:
1431
<p><blockquote>
1432
<i>"Political economy confuses, on principle, two very different kinds of
1433
private property, one of which rests on the labour of the producers
1434
himself, and the other on the exploitation of the labour of others. It
1435
forgets that the latter is not only the direct antithesis of the former,
1436
but grows on the former's tomb and nowhere else.
1437
<p>
1438
"In Western Europe, the homeland of political economy, the process of
1439
primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished. . . .
1440
<p>
1441
"It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime constantly
1442
comes up against the obstacle presented by the producer, who, as owner
1443
of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself
1444
instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically
1445
opposed economic systems has its practical manifestation here in the
1446
struggle between them."</i> [Karl Marx, <b>Capital</b>, vol. 1, p. 931]
1447
</blockquote><p>
1448
Individualist anarchism is obviously an aspect of this struggle
1449
between the system of peasant and artisan production of early America
1450
and the state encouraged system of private property and wage labour.
1451
"Anarcho"-capitalists, in contrast, assume that generalised wage labour
1452
would remain under their system (while paying lip-service to the possibilities
1453
of co-operatives -- and if an "anarcho"-capitalist thinks that co-operative
1454
will become the dominant form of workplace organisation, then they are
1455
some kind of market socialist, <b>not</b> a capitalist). It is clear that their
1456
end point (a pure capitalism, i.e. generalised wage labour) is directly
1457
the opposite of that desired by anarchists. This was the case of the
1458
Individualist Anarchists who embraced the ideal of (non-capitalist)
1459
laissez faire competition -- they did so, as noted, to <b>end</b> exploitation,
1460
<b>not</b> to maintain it. Indeed, their analysis of the change in American
1461
society from one of mainly independent producers into one based mainly
1462
upon wage labour has many parallels with, of all people, Karl Marx's
1463
presented in chapter 33 of <b>Capital</b>. Marx, correctly, argues that <i>"the
1464
capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist
1465
private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation
1466
of that private property which rests on the labour of the individual
1467
himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
1468
p. 940] He notes that to achieve this, the state is used:
1469
<p><blockquote>
1470
<i>"How then can the anti-capitalistic cancer of the colonies be healed?
1471
. . . Let the Government set an artificial price on the virgin soil,
1472
a price independent of the law of supply and demand, a price that compels
1473
the immigrant to work a long time for wages before he can earn enough
1474
money to buy land, and turn himself into an independent farmer."</i>
1475
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 938]
1476
</blockquote><p>
1477
Moreover, tariffs are introduced with <i>"the objective of manufacturing
1478
capitalists artificially"</i> for the <i>"system of protection was an artificial
1479
means of manufacturing manufacturers, or expropriating independent
1480
workers, of capitalising the national means of production and
1481
subsistence, and of forcibly cutting short the transition . . . to
1482
the modern mode of production,"</i> to capitalism [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 932 and
1483
pp. 921-2]
1484
<p>
1485
It is this process which Individualist Anarchism protested against, the use
1486
of the state to favour the rising capitalist class. However, unlike social
1487
anarchists, many individualist anarchists were not consistently against
1488
wage labour. This is the other significant overlap between "anarcho"-capitalism
1489
and individualist anarchism. However, they were opposed to exploitation and
1490
argued (unlike "anarcho"-capitalism) that in their system workers bargaining
1491
powers would be raised to such a level that their wages would equal the full
1492
product of their labour. However, as we discuss in
1493
<a href="secG1.html#secg11">section G.1.1</a> the social
1494
context the individualist anarchists lived in must be remembered. America
1495
at the times was a predominantly rural society and industry was not as
1496
developed as it is now wage labour would have been minimised (Spooner,
1497
for example, explicitly envisioned a society made up mostly entirely of
1498
self-employed workers). As Kline argues:
1499
<p><blockquote>
1500
<i>"Committed as they were to equality in the pursuit of property, the
1501
objective for the anarchist became the construction of a society
1502
providing equal access to those things necessary for creating wealth.
1503
The goal of the anarchists who extolled mutualism and the abolition of
1504
all monopolies was, then, a society where everyone willing to work would
1505
have the tools and raw materials necessary for production in a
1506
non-exploitative system . . . the dominant vision of the future society
1507
. . . [was] underpinned by individual, self-employed workers."</i></i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
1508
p. 95]
1509
</blockquote><p>
1510
As such, a limited amount of wage labour within a predominantly
1511
self-employed economy does not make a given society capitalist any
1512
more than a small amount of governmental communities within an
1513
predominantly anarchist world would make it statist. As Marx argued.
1514
when <i>"the separation of the worker from the conditions of labour
1515
and from the soil . . . does not yet exist, or only sporadically,
1516
or on too limited a scale . . . Where, amongst such curious
1517
characters, is the 'field of abstinence' for the capitalists?
1518
. . . Today's wage-labourer is tomorrow's independent peasant
1519
or artisan, working for himself. He vanishes from the labour-market
1520
of wage-labourers into independent producers, who work for themselves
1521
instead of for capital"</i> and so <i>"the degree of exploitation of the
1522
wage-labourer remain[s] indecently low."</i> In addition, the
1523
<i>"wage-labourer also loses, along with the relation of dependence,
1524
the feeling of dependence on the abstemious capitalist."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,
1525
pp. 935-6]
1526
<p>
1527
Saying that, as we discuss in <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>, individualist anarchist support
1528
for wage labour is at odds with the ideas of Proudhon and, far more
1529
importantly, in contradiction to many of the stated principles of the
1530
individualist anarchists themselves. In particular, wage labour violates
1531
"occupancy and use" as well as having more than a passing similarity to
1532
the state. However, these problems can be solved by consistently applying
1533
the principles of individualist anarchism, unlike "anarcho"-capitalism,
1534
and that is why it is a real school of anarchism. In other words, a
1535
system of <b>generalised</b> wage labour would not be anarchist nor would
1536
it be non-exploitative. Moreover, the social context these ideas were
1537
developed in and would have been applied ensure that these contradictions
1538
would have been minimised. If they had been applied, a genuine anarchist
1539
society of self-employed workers would, in all likelihood, have been
1540
created (at least at first, whether the market would increase inequalities
1541
is a moot point -- see <a href="secG4.html">section G.4</a>).
1542
<p>
1543
We must stress that the social situation is important as it shows how
1544
apparently superficially similar arguments can have radically different
1545
aims and results depending on who suggests them and in what circumstances.
1546
As noted, during the rise of capitalism the bourgeoisie were not shy in
1547
urging state intervention against the masses. Unsurprisingly, working class
1548
people generally took an anti-state position during this period. The
1549
individualist anarchists were part of that tradition, opposing what Marx
1550
termed <i>"primitive accumulation"</i> in favour of the pre-capitalist forms of
1551
property and society it was destroying.
1552
<p>
1553
However, when capitalism found its feet and could do without such obvious
1554
intervention, the possibility of an "anti-state" capitalism could arise.
1555
Such a possibility became a definite once the state started to intervene
1556
in ways which, while benefiting the system as a whole, came into conflict
1557
with the property and power of individual members of the capitalist and
1558
landlord class. Thus social legislation which attempted to restrict the
1559
negative effects of unbridled exploitation and oppression on workers and
1560
the environment were having on the economy were the source of much outrage
1561
in certain bourgeois circles:
1562
<p><blockquote>
1563
<i>"Quite independently of these tendencies [of individualist anarchism]
1564
. . . the anti-state bourgeoisie (which is also anti-statist, being
1565
hostile to any social intervention on the part of the State to protect
1566
the victims of exploitation -- in the matter of working hours, hygienic
1567
working conditions and so on), and the greed of unlimited exploitation,
1568
had stirred up in England a certain agitation in favour of
1569
pseudo-individualism, an unrestrained exploitation. To this end, they
1570
enlisted the services of a mercenary pseudo-literature . . . which
1571
played with doctrinaire and fanatical ideas in order to project a species
1572
of 'individualism' that was absolutely sterile, and a species of
1573
'non-interventionism' that would let a man die of hunger rather than
1574
offend his dignity."</i> [Max Nettlau, <b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, p. 39]
1575
</blockquote><p>
1576
This perspective can be seen when Tucker denounced Herbert Spencer as
1577
a champion of the capitalistic class for his vocal attacks on social
1578
legislation which claimed to benefit working class people but stays
1579
strangely silent on the laws passed to benefit (usually indirectly)
1580
capital and the rich. "Anarcho"-capitalism is part of that tradition,
1581
the tradition associated with a capitalism which no longer needs obvious
1582
state intervention as enough wealth as been accumulated to keep workers
1583
under control by means of market power.
1584
<p>
1585
As with the original nineteenth century British "anti-state"
1586
capitalists like Spencer and Herbert, Rothbard <i>"completely overlooks
1587
the role of the state in building and maintaining a capitalist economy
1588
in the West. Privileged to live in the twentieth century, long after
1589
the battles to establish capitalism have been fought and won, Rothbard
1590
sees the state solely as a burden on the market and a vehicle for
1591
imposing the still greater burden of socialism. He manifests a kind
1592
of historical nearsightedness that allows him to collapse many centuries
1593
of human experience into one long night of tyranny that ended only with
1594
the invention of the free market and its 'spontaneous' triumph over the
1595
past. It is pointless to argue, as Rothbard seems ready to do, that
1596
capitalism would have succeeded without the bourgeois state; the fact
1597
is that all capitalist nations have relied on the machinery of government
1598
to create and preserve the political and legal environments required
1599
by their economic system."</i> That, of course, has not stopped him <i>"critis[ing]
1600
others for being unhistorical."</i> [Stephen L Newman, <b>Liberalism at Wit's
1601
End</b>, pp. 77-8 and p. 79]
1602
<p>
1603
In other words, there is substantial differences between the victims of a
1604
thief trying to stop being robbed and be left alone to enjoy their property
1605
and the successful thief doing the same! Individualist Anarchist's were
1606
aware of this. For example, Victor Yarros stressed this key difference
1607
between individualist anarchism and the proto-"libertarian" capitalists
1608
of "voluntaryism":
1609
<p><blockquote>
1610
<i>"[Auberon Herbert] believes in allowing people to retain all their
1611
possessions, no matter how unjustly and basely acquired, while getting
1612
them, so to speak, to swear off stealing and usurping and to promise to
1613
behave well in the future. We, on the other hand, while insisting on the
1614
principle of private property, in wealth honestly obtained under the reign
1615
of liberty, do not think it either unjust or unwise to dispossess the
1616
landlords who have monopolised natural wealth by force and fraud. We hold
1617
that the poor and disinherited toilers would be justified in expropriating,
1618
not alone the landlords, who notoriously have no equitable titles to their
1619
lands, but <b>all</b> the financial lords and rulers, all the millionaires and
1620
very wealthy individuals. . . . Almost all possessors of great wealth
1621
enjoy neither what they nor their ancestors rightfully acquired (and if
1622
Mr. Herbert wishes to challenge the correctness of this statement, we are
1623
ready to go with him into a full discussion of the subject). . . .
1624
<p>
1625
"If he holds that the landlords are justly entitled to their lands, let
1626
him make a defence of the landlords or an attack on our unjust proposal."</i>
1627
[quoted by Carl Watner, <i>"The English Individualists As They Appear In
1628
Liberty,"</i> pp. 191-211, <b>Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty</b>,
1629
Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), pp. 199-200]
1630
</blockquote><p>
1631
Significantly, Tucker and other individualist anarchists saw state intervention
1632
has a result of capital manipulating legislation to gain an advantage on the
1633
so-called free market which allowed them to exploit labour and, as such, it
1634
benefited the <b>whole</b> capitalist class. Rothbard, at best, acknowledges
1635
that <b>some</b> sections of big business benefit from the current system and so
1636
fails to have the comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of capitalism
1637
as a <b>system</b> (rather as an ideology). This lack of understanding of capitalism
1638
as a historic and dynamic system rooted in class rule and economic power is
1639
important in evaluating "anarcho"-capitalist claims to anarchism. Marxists
1640
are not considered anarchists as they support the state as a means of
1641
transition to an anarchist society. Much the same logic can be applied to
1642
right-wing libertarians (even if they do call themselves "anarcho"-capitalists).
1643
This is because they do not seek to correct the inequalities produced by
1644
previous state action before ending it nor do they seek to change the
1645
definitions of "private property" imposed by the state. In effect, they
1646
argue that the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" should "wither away" and
1647
be limited to defending the property accumulated in a few hands. Needless
1648
to say, starting from the current (coercively produced) distribution of
1649
property and then eliminating "force" simply means defending the power and
1650
privilege of ruling minorities:
1651
<p><blockquote>
1652
<i>"The modern Individualism initiated by Herbert Spencer is, like the critical
1653
theory of Proudhon, a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of
1654
government, but its practical solution of the social problem is miserable --
1655
so miserable as to lead us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an
1656
excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination."</i> [<b>Act For
1657
Yourselves</b>, p. 98]
1658
</blockquote>
1659
1660
</BODY>
1661
</HTML>
1662
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1