4
<title>5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?
9
<h1>5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?</h1>
11
"Anarcho"-capitalists aim for a situation in which <i>"no land areas,
12
no square footage in the world shall remain 'public,'"</i> in other words
13
<b>everything</b> will be <i>"privatised."</i> [Murray Rothbard, <b>Nations by
14
Consent</b>, p. 84] They claim that privatising "the commons" (e.g. roads,
15
parks, etc.) which are now freely available to all will increase liberty.
16
Is this true? We have shown before why the claim that privatisation can
17
protect the environment is highly implausible (see section <a href="secE2.html">E.2</a>). Here we
18
will concern ourselves with private ownership of commonly used "property"
19
which we all take for granted and pay for with taxes.
21
Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society based
22
on "privatised" roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard in <b>For a New
23
Liberty</b>, pp. 202-203 and David Friedman in <b>The Machinery of Freedom</b>,
24
pp. 98-101) that the only increase of liberty will be for the ruling elite.
25
As "anarcho"-capitalism is based on paying for what one uses, privatisation
26
of roads would require some method of tracking individuals to ensure that
27
they pay for the roads they use. In the UK, for example, during the 1980s
28
the British Tory government looked into the idea of toll-based motorways.
29
Obviously having toll-booths on motorways would hinder their use and restrict
30
"freedom," and so they came up with the idea of tracking cars by satellite.
31
Every vehicle would have a tracking device installed in it and a satellite
32
would record where people went and which roads they used. They would then
33
be sent a bill or have their bank balances debited based on this information
34
(in the fascist city-state/company town of Singapore such a scheme <b>has</b>
37
If we extrapolate from this example to a system of <b>fully</b> privatised
38
"commons," it would clearly require all individuals to have tracking
39
devices on them so they could be properly billed for use of roads,
40
pavements, etc. Obviously being tracked by private firms would be a
41
serious threat to individual liberty. Another, less costly, option would
42
be for private guards to randomly stop and question car-owners and
43
individuals to make sure they had paid for the use of the road or pavement
44
in question. "Parasites" would be arrested and fined or locked up. Again,
45
however, being stopped and questioned by uniformed individuals has more
46
in common with police states than liberty. Toll-boothing <b>every</b> street
47
would be highly unfeasible due to the costs involved and difficulties for
48
use that it implies. Thus the idea of privatising roads and charging
49
drivers to gain access seems impractical at best and distinctly freedom
50
endangering if implemented at worse.
52
Of course, the option of owners letting users have free access to the
53
roads and pavements they construct and run would be difficult for a
54
profit-based company. No one could make a profit in that case. If
55
companies paid to construct roads for their customers/employees to use,
56
they would be financially hindered in competition with other companies
57
that did not, and thus would be unlikely to do so. If they restricted
58
use purely to their own customers, the tracking problem appears again.
60
Some may object that this picture of extensive surveillance of
61
individuals would not occur or be impossible. However, Murray
62
Rothbard (in a slightly different context) argued that technology
63
would be available to collate information about individuals. He
64
argued that <i>"[i]t should be pointed out that modern technology
65
makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of
66
information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or
67
violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an
68
anarchist [sic!] society would see the expansion of this sort of
69
dissemination of data."</i> [<i>"Society Without A State"</i>, in
71
Pennock and Chapman (eds.), p. 199] So, perhaps, with the total
72
privatisation of society we would also see the rise of private
73
Big Brothers, collecting information about individuals for use by
74
property owners. The example of the <b>Economic League</b> (a British
75
company who provided the "service" of tracking the political
76
affiliations and activities of workers for employers) springs to mind.
78
And, of course, these privatisation suggestions ignore differences in
79
income and market power. If, for example, variable pricing is used to
80
discourage road use at times of peak demand (to eliminate traffic jams
81
at rush-hour) as is suggested both by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman,
82
then the rich will have far more "freedom" to travel than the rest of
83
the population. And we may even see people having to go into debt just
84
to get to work or move to look for work.
86
Which raises another problem with notion of total privatisation, the
87
problem that it implies the end of freedom of travel. Unless you get
88
permission or (and this seems more likely) pay for access, you will
89
not be able to travel <b>anywhere.</b> As Rothbard <b>himself</b> makes clear,
90
"anarcho"-capitalism means the end of the right to roam or even
91
travel. He states that <i>"it became clear to me that a totally privatised
92
country would not have open borders at all. If every piece of land
93
in a country were owned . . . no immigrant could enter there unless
94
invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property."</i>
96
by Consent</b>, p. 84] What happens to those who cannot <b>afford</b> to
97
pay for access is not addressed (perhaps, being unable to exit a
98
given capitalist's land they will become bonded labourers? Or be
99
imprisoned and used to undercut workers' wages via prison labour?
100
Perhaps they will just be shot as trespassers? Who can tell?). Nor
101
is it addressed how this situation actually <b>increases</b> freedom.
102
For Rothbard, a <i>"totally privatised country would be as closed as
103
the particular inhabitants and property owners [<b>not</b> the same
104
thing, we must point out] desire. It seems clear, then, that the
105
regime of open borders that exists <b>de facto</b> in the US really
106
amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state. . . and does
107
not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."</i> [<b>Op.
109
p. 85] Of course, the wishes of <b>non</b>-proprietors (the vast
110
majority) do not matter in the slightest. Thus, it is clear, that
111
with the privatisation of "the commons" the right to roam, to
112
travel, would become a privilege, subject to the laws and rules
113
of the property owners. This can hardly be said to <b>increase</b>
114
freedom for anyone bar the capitalist class.
116
Rothbard acknowledges that <i>"in a fully privatised world, access
117
rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership."</i>
118
[<b>Nations by Consent</b>, p. 86] Given that there is no free lunch,
119
we can imagine we would have to pay for such "rights." The implications
120
of this are obviously unappealing and an obvious danger to individual
121
freedom. The problem of access associated with the idea of privatising
122
the roads can only be avoided by having a "right of passage" encoded
123
into the "general libertarian law code." This would mean that road
124
owners would be required, by law, to let anyone use them. But where
125
are "absolute" property rights in this case? Are the owners of roads
126
not to have the same rights as other owners? And if "right of passage"
127
is enforced, what would this mean for road owners when people sue
128
them for car-pollution related illnesses? (The right of those injured by pollution
129
to sue polluters is the main way "anarcho"-capitalists propose to protect
130
the environment. See sections <a href="secE2.html">E.2</a> and <a href="secE3.html">E.3</a>). It is unlikely that those
131
wishing to bring suit could find, never mind sue, the millions of individual
132
car owners who could have potentially caused their illness. Hence the
133
road-owners would be sued for letting polluting (or unsafe) cars onto "their"
134
roads. The road-owners would therefore desire to restrict pollution levels
135
by restricting the right to use their property, and so would resist the
136
"right of passage" as an "attack" on their "absolute" property rights. If
137
the road-owners got their way (which would be highly likely given the
138
need for "absolute" property rights and is suggested by the variable
139
pricing way to avoid traffic jams mentioned above) and were able to control
140
who used their property, freedom to travel would be <b>very</b> restricted and
141
limited to those whom the owner considered "desirable." Indeed, Murray
142
Rothbard supports such a regime (<i>"In the free [sic!] society, they
143
[travellers] would, in the first instance, have the right to travel
144
only on those streets whose owners agree to have them there"</i> [<b>The
145
Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 119]). The threat to liberty in such a system
146
is obvious -- to all but Rothbard and other right-libertarians, of
149
To take another example, let us consider the privatisation of parks,
150
streets and other public areas. Currently, individuals can use these areas
151
to hold political demonstrations, hand out leaflets, picket and so on.
152
However, under "anarcho"-capitalism the owners of such property can
153
restrict such liberties if they desire, calling such activities "initiation
154
of force" (although they cannot explain how speaking your mind is an
155
example of "force"). Therefore, freedom of speech, assembly and a host
156
of other liberties we take for granted would be reduced (if not eliminated)
157
under a right-"libertarian" regime. Or, taking the case of pickets and
158
other forms of social struggle, its clear that privatising "the commons"
159
would only benefit the bosses. Strikers or other activists picketing or
160
handing out leaflets in shopping centre's are quickly ejected by private
161
security even today. Think about how much worse it would become under
162
"anarcho"-capitalism when the whole world becomes a series of malls -- it
163
would be impossible to hold a picket when the owner of the pavement objects,
164
for example (as Rothbard himself argues, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 132) and if the owner
165
of the pavement also happens to be the boss being picketed, then workers'
166
rights would be zero. Perhaps we could also see capitalists suing working
167
class organisations for littering their property if they do hand out
168
leaflets (so placing even greater stress on limited resources).
170
The I.W.W. went down in history for its rigorous defence of freedom of
171
speech because of its rightly famous "free speech" fights in numerous
172
American cities and towns. Repression was inflicted upon wobblies who
173
joined the struggle by "private citizens," but in the end the I.W.W. won.
174
Consider the case under "anarcho"-capitalism. The wobblies would have been
175
"criminal aggressors" as the owners of the streets have refused to allow
176
"undesirables" to use them to argue their case. If they refused to
177
acknowledge the decree of the property owners, private cops would have
178
taken them away. Given that those who controlled city government in
179
the historical example were the wealthiest citizens in town, its likely
180
that the same people would have been involved in the fictional
181
("anarcho"-capitalist) account. Is it a good thing that in the real
182
account the wobblies are hailed as heroes of freedom but in the fictional
183
one they are "criminal aggressors"? Does converting public spaces into
184
private property <b>really</b> stop restrictions on free speech being a
187
Of course, Rothbard (and other right-libertarians) are aware that
188
privatisation will not remove restrictions on freedom of speech,
189
association and so on (while, at the same time, trying to portray
190
themselves as supporters of such liberties!). However, for
191
right-libertarians such restrictions are of no consequence. As
192
Rothbard argues, any <i>"prohibitions would not be state imposed,
193
but would simply be requirements for residence or for use of
194
some person's or community's land area."</i> [<b>Nations by Consent</b>,
195
p. 85] Thus we yet again see the blindness of right-libertarians
196
to the commonality between private property and the state. The
197
state also maintains that submitting to its authority is the
198
requirement for taking up residence in its territory (see
199
also <a href="append132.html#secf23">section 2.3</a> for more on this). As Benjamin Tucker noted,
200
the state can be defined as (in part) <i>"the assumption of sole
201
authority over a given area and all within it."</i> [<b>The Individualist
202
Anarchists</b>, p. 24] If the property owners can determine
203
"prohibitions" (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the
204
property then they are the <i>"sole authority over a given area
205
and all within it,"</i> i.e. a state. Thus privatising "the commons"
206
means subjecting the non-property owners to the rules and laws
207
of the property owners -- in effect, privatising the state and
208
turning the world into a series of Monarchies and oligarchies
209
without the pretence of democracy and democratic rights.
211
These examples can hardly be said to be increasing liberty for society as
212
a whole, although "anarcho" capitalists seem to think they would. So far
213
from <b>increasing</b> liberty for all, then, privatising the commons would
214
only increase it for the ruling elite, by giving them yet another monopoly
215
from which to collect income and exercise their power over. It would
216
<b>reduce</b> freedom for everyone else. As Peter Marshall notes, <i>"[i]n the name
217
of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into
218
private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected
219
by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all"</i>
220
[<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 564].
222
Little wonder Proudhon argued that <i>"if the public highway is nothing but
223
an accessory of private property; if the communal lands are converted into
224
private property; if the public domain, in short, is guarded, exploited,
225
leased, and sold like private property -- what remains for the proletaire?
226
Of what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to
227
enter the regime of police?"</i> [<b>System of Economic Contradictions</b>, p. 371]
added
removed
append135.html
