4
<title>F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?
9
<h1>F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?</h1>
12
"Anarcho"-capitalists aim for a situation in which <i>"no land areas,
13
no square footage in the world shall remain 'public,'"</i> in other words
14
<b>everything</b> will be <i>"privatised."</i> [Murray Rothbard, <b>Nations by
15
Consent</b>, p. 84] They claim that privatising "the commons" (e.g. roads,
16
parks, etc.) which are now freely available to all will increase liberty.
17
Is this true? Here we will concern ourselves with private ownership of
18
commonly used "property" which we all take for granted (and often pay for
21
Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society based
22
on "privatised" roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard [<b>For a New
23
Liberty</b>, pp. 202-203] and David Friedman [<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>
35
been introduced). In London, the local government has introduced a scheme
36
which allowed people to pay for public transport by electronic card. It also
37
allowed the government to keep a detailed record of where and when people
38
travelled, with obvious civil liberty implications.
40
If we extrapolate from these to a system of <b>fully</b> privatised
41
"commons," it would clearly require all individuals to have tracking
42
devices on them so they could be properly billed for use of roads,
43
pavements, etc. Obviously being tracked by private firms would be a
44
serious threat to individual liberty. Another, less costly, option would
45
be for private guards to randomly stop and question car-owners and
46
individuals to make sure they had paid for the use of the road or pavement
47
in question. "Parasites" would be arrested and fined or locked up. Again,
48
however, being stopped and questioned by uniformed individuals has more
49
in common with police states than liberty. Toll-boothing <b>every</b> street
50
would be highly unfeasible due to the costs involved and difficulties for
51
use that it implies. Thus the idea of privatising roads and charging
52
drivers to gain access seems impractical at best and distinctly freedom
53
endangering at worse. Would giving companies that information for all
54
travellers, including pedestrians, <b>really</b> eliminate all civil
57
Of course, the option of owners letting users have free access to the
58
roads and pavements they construct and run would be difficult for a
59
profit-based company. No one could make a profit in that case. If
60
companies paid to construct roads for their customers/employees to use,
61
they would be financially hindered in competition with other companies
62
that did not, and thus would be unlikely to do so. If they restricted
63
use purely to their own customers, the tracking problem appears again.
64
So the costs in creating a transport network and then running it explains
65
why capitalism has always turned to state aid to provide infrastructure
66
(the potential power of the owners of such investments in charging
67
monopoly prices to other capitalists explains why states have also
68
often regulated transport).
70
Some may object that this picture of extensive surveillance of
71
individuals would not occur or be impossible. However, Murray
72
Rothbard (in a slightly different context) argued that technology
73
would be available to collate information about individuals. He
74
argued that <i>"[i]t should be pointed out that modern technology
75
makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of
76
information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or
77
violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an
78
anarchist [sic!] society would see the expansion of this sort of
79
dissemination of data."</i> [<b>Society Without A State"</b>, p. 199]
80
So with the total privatisation of society we could also
81
see the rise of private Big Brothers, collecting information about
82
individuals for use by property owners. The example of the <b>Economic
83
League</b> (a British company which provided the "service" of tracking
84
the political affiliations and activities of workers for employers)
87
And, of course, these privatisation suggestions ignore differences in
88
income and market power. If, for example, variable pricing is used to
89
discourage road use at times of peak demand (to eliminate traffic jams
90
at rush-hour) as is suggested both by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman,
91
then the rich will have far more "freedom" to travel than the rest of
92
the population. And we may even see people having to go into debt just
93
to get to work or move to look for work.
95
Which raises another problem with notion of total privatisation, the
96
problem that it implies the end of freedom of travel. Unless you get
97
permission or (and this seems more likely) pay for access, you will
98
not be able to travel <b>anywhere.</b> As Rothbard <b>himself</b> makes clear,
99
"anarcho"-capitalism means the end of the right to roam. He states that
100
<i>"it became clear to me that a totally privatised country would not
101
have open borders at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned
102
. . . no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed
103
to rent, or purchase, property."</i> What happens to those who cannot
104
<b>afford</b> to pay for access or travel (i.e., exit) is not addressed
105
(perhaps, being unable to exit a given capitalist's land they will become
106
bonded labourers? Or be imprisoned and used to undercut workers' wages
107
via prison labour? Perhaps they will just be shot as trespassers? Who can
108
tell?). Nor is it addressed how this situation actually <b>increases</b>
109
freedom. For Rothbard, a <i>"totally
110
privatised country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and
111
property owners [<b>not</b> the same thing, we must point out] desire.
112
It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists
113
<b>de facto</b> in the US really amounts to a compulsory opening by
114
the central state. . . and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of
115
the proprietors."</i> [<b>Nations by Consent</b>, p. 84 and p. 85]
116
Of course, the wishes of <b>non</b>-proprietors (the vast majority)
117
do not matter in the slightest. Thus, it is clear, that with the
118
privatisation of "the commons" the right to roam, to travel, would
119
become a privilege, subject to the laws and rules of the property
120
owners. This can hardly be said to <b>increase</b> freedom for anyone
121
bar the capitalist class.
123
Rothbard acknowledges that <i>"in a fully privatised world, access
124
rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership."</i>
125
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 86] Given that there is no free lunch, we can
126
imagine we would have to pay for such "rights." The implications
127
of this are obviously unappealing and an obvious danger to individual
128
freedom. The problem of access associated with the idea of privatising
129
the roads can only be avoided by having a "right of passage" encoded
130
into the "general libertarian law code." This would mean that road
131
owners would be required, by law, to let anyone use them. But where
132
are "absolute" property rights in this case? Are the owners of roads
133
not to have the same rights as other owners? And if "right of passage"
134
is enforced, what would this mean for road owners when people sue
135
them for car-pollution related illnesses? (The right of those injured by pollution
136
to sue polluters is the main way "anarcho"-capitalists propose to protect
137
the environment -- see <a href="secE4.html">section E.4</a>). It is unlikely that those
138
wishing to bring suit could find, never mind sue, the millions of individual
139
car owners who could have potentially caused their illness. Hence the
140
road-owners would be sued for letting polluting (or unsafe) cars onto "their"
141
roads. The road-owners would therefore desire to restrict pollution levels
142
by restricting the right to use their property, and so would resist the
143
"right of passage" as an "attack" on their "absolute" property rights. If
144
the road-owners got their way (which would be highly likely given the
145
need for "absolute" property rights and is suggested by the variable
146
pricing way to avoid traffic jams mentioned above) and were able to control
147
who used their property, freedom to travel would be <b>very</b> restricted and
148
limited to those whom the owner considered "desirable." Indeed, Murray
149
Rothbard supports such a regime (<i>"In the free [sic!] society, they
150
[travellers] would, in the first instance, have the right to travel
151
only on those streets whose owners agree to have them there."</i> [<b>The
152
Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 119]). The threat to liberty in such a system
153
is obvious -- to all but Rothbard and other right-"libertarians", of
156
To take another example, let us consider the privatisation of parks,
157
streets and other public areas. Currently, individuals can use these areas
158
to hold political demonstrations, hand out leaflets, picket and so on.
159
However, under "anarcho"-capitalism the owners of such property can
160
restrict such liberties if they desire, calling such activities "initiation
161
of force" (although they cannot explain how speaking your mind is an
162
example of "force"). Therefore, freedom of speech, assembly and a host
163
of other liberties we take for granted would be eliminated under a
164
right-"libertarian" regime. Or, taking the case of pickets and other
165
forms of social struggle, its clear that privatising "the commons"
166
would only benefit the bosses. Strikers or political activists picketing or
167
handing out leaflets in shopping centres are quickly ejected by private
168
security even today. Think about how much worse it would become under
169
"anarcho"-capitalism when the whole world becomes a series of malls -- it
170
would be impossible to hold a picket when the owner of the pavement objects
171
(as Rothbard himself gleefully argued. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 132]). If the
172
owner of the pavement also happens to be the boss being picketed, which
173
Rothbard himself considered most likely, then workers' rights would be
174
zero. Perhaps we could also see capitalists suing working class
175
organisations for littering their property if they do hand
176
out leaflets (so placing even greater stress on limited resources).
178
The I.W.W. went down in history for its rigorous defence of freedom of
179
speech because of its rightly famous "free speech" fights in numerous
180
American cities and towns. The city bosses worried by the wobblies'
181
open air public meetings simply made them illegal. The I.W.W. used
182
direct action and carried on holding them. Violence was inflicted
183
upon wobblies who joined the struggle by "private citizens," but
184
in the end the I.W.W. won (for Emma Goldman's account of the San Diego
185
struggle and the terrible repression inflicted on the libertarians by
186
the "patriotic" vigilantes see <b>Living My Life</b> [vol. 1, pp. 494-503]).
187
Consider the case under "anarcho"-capitalism. The wobblies would have been
188
"criminal aggressors" as the owners of the streets have refused to allow
189
"subversives" to use them to argue their case. If they refused to
190
acknowledge the decree of the property owners, private cops would have
191
taken them away. Given that those who controlled city government in
192
the historical example were the wealthiest citizens in town, its likely
193
that the same people would have been involved in the fictional
194
("anarcho"-capitalist) account. Is it a good thing that in the real
195
account the wobblies are hailed as heroes of freedom but in the fictional
196
one they are "criminal aggressors"? Does converting public spaces into
197
private property <b>really</b> stop restrictions on free speech being a
200
Of course, Rothbard (and other right-"libertarians") are aware that
201
privatisation will not remove restrictions on freedom of speech,
202
association and so on (while, at the same time, trying to portray
203
themselves as supporters of such liberties!). However, for them such
204
restrictions are of no consequence. As Rothbard argues, any <i>"prohibitions
205
would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence
206
or for use of some person's or community's land area."</i> [<b>Nations
207
by Consent</b>, p. 85] Thus we yet again see the blindness of right-"libertarians"
208
to the commonality between private property and the state we first
209
noted in <a href="secF1.html">section F.1</a>. The
210
state also maintains that submitting to its authority is the
211
requirement for taking up residence in its territory. As Tucker noted,
212
the state can be defined as (in part) <i>"the assumption of sole
213
authority over a given area and all within it."</i> [<b>The Individualist
214
Anarchists</b>, p. 24] If the property owners can determine
215
"prohibitions" (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the
216
property then they are the <i>"sole authority over a given area
217
and all within it,"</i> i.e. a state. Thus privatising "the commons"
218
means subjecting the non-property owners to the rules and laws
219
of the property owners -- in effect, privatising the state and
220
turning the world into a series of monarchies and oligarchies
221
without the pretence of democracy and democratic rights.
223
These examples can hardly be said to be increasing liberty for society as
224
a whole, although "anarcho"-capitalists seem to think they would. So far
225
from <b>increasing</b> liberty for all, then, privatising the commons would
226
only increase it for the ruling elite, by giving them yet another monopoly
227
from which to collect income and exercise their power over. It would
228
<b>reduce</b> freedom for everyone else. Ironically, therefore, Rothbard
229
ideology provides more than enough evidence to confirm the anarchist argument
230
that private property and liberty are fundamentally in conflict. <i>"It goes
231
without saying that th[e] absolute freedom of thought, speech, and action"</i>
232
anarchists support <i>"is incompatible with the maintenance of institutions
233
that restrict free thought, rigidify speech in the form of a final and
234
irrevocable vow, and even dictate that the worker fold his arms and die
235
of hunger at the owners' command."</i> [Elisee Reclus, quoted by John P. Clark
236
and Camille Martin (eds.), <b>Anarchy, Geography, Modernity</b>, p. 159]
237
As Peter Marshall notes, <i>"[i]n the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists
238
would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not
239
flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the
240
open air when it is enjoyed by all."</i> [<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 564]
242
Little wonder Proudhon argued that <i>"if the public highway is nothing but
243
an accessory of private property; if the communal lands are converted into
244
private property; if the public domain, in short, is guarded, exploited,
245
leased, and sold like private property -- what remains for the proletaire?
246
Of what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to
247
enter the regime of police?"</i> [<b>System of Economic Contradictions</b>, p. 371]
b'\\ No newline at end of file'
added
removed
html/secF5.html
