Anarcho-capitalist FAQ

The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office.

The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens.

If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals.

- Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of Efficient Government Service

With the State - biggest, baddest exploiter of all time - out of the picture, exploitation, in terms of aggression, would all but vanish.

It would be a voluntary society, an anarchy.

Some say that property and capitalism is automatically exploitative, because it allows profit and/or private property.

We'll answer this claim in the section below called What are the myths of socialism?.

6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?

The most general justification was given above in part 2: no man should be ruled by another man.

Individual sovereignty, moral autonomy, dignity, soul, whatever you wish to call it, demands that a person refuse to be ruled. What about the "capitalist" part? There are several justifications given by various anarcho-capitalists

Moral justifications:

• The life of man qua man, man as a rational being, morally necessitates a laissez-faire economic system.

(Ayn Rand and objectivists)

• Man must be free and uncoerced so that the man, especially his moral faculty, is allowed to evolve. (Herbert Spencer)
• There is an overriding moral principle in civilized society: that no one should violate the (general moral) rights of others, i.e. initiate force or threat of force.

This is called the NAP - Non-Aggression Principle. (Spencer, Rand, Rothbard)

• Capitalism is contractual; it is what rational people implicitly agree to do when they enter society.

(Narveson) Other justifications:

• Libertarianism capitalism is simply what society will do more or less in many or most places in the absense of a State.

(David Friedman) This is a a utilitarian or "value-free" economic approach.

• One cannot argue against anarcho-capitalism without implicitly agreeing to its basic assumptions.

(Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumention ethic.) 7. Are anarcho-capitalists anti-war?

If you take war to be violent conflicts between States, then anarcho-capitalists are ardently anti-war.

Anarcho-capitalists do not see global politics with the conventional statist paradigm - as a collection of competing States, with every man on a State team. Anarcho-capitalist understand that rulers and subjects have very different interests.

The rulers stand to gain power, prestige and popularity from war, whereas the subjects pay the costs, in lives and in money, and in standard of living and quality of life.

Wars should be thought of as disputes between petulant power-maddened politicians. Thus rulers get the benefits of militarism, but shove the costs on others.

They also seize upon war as an opportunity to ramp up power. Finally, they use the war as a propaganda tool to gain support for their rule.

Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed.

Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State's advantage.

If "Ruritania" was being attacked by "Walldavia," the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste.

- Murray N. Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State

So far we've discussed traditional State on State wars. What about non-traditional wars, such as the "war" on terrorism? Anarcho-capitalists don't see the "war on terrorism" to be a bone fide war.

Terrorism is criminal activity, and should be treated as such. It is justified to arrest the actual perpetrators of terrorism, but it is wrong to violate non-combatants.

Terrorist acts should be handled as a criminal justice matter using peace officers, not as an inter-State war, with bombings and invasions and civilian casualties.

Most anarcho-capitalists believe that the modern State, by the very nature of way it fights wars, cannot possibly engage in a just war. Modern weaponry makes it impossible for a State to wage war without murdering innocent people.

An obvious crime like the "9/11" attack is framed, not as a multiple homicide requiring police investigation, but as an act of war mandating military violence.

And the flaghumping public bought it. The anti-war.com website is edited and managed by anarcho-capitalist peacemongers Justin Raimondo and Jeremy Sapienza.

8. What are the myths of statism?

The paradigm of statism divides the world into competing States, and men into subjects of those States. The State generally succeeds in buying the services of "court intellectuals" to convince the people that wise leadership is necessary, for their own good, inevitable, and at any rate better than any alternative.

Here are some common myths:

1. We are the government.

This is perhaps the most insidious myth - a form of extreme victimhood.

This Stateholm syndrome is a virulent form of Stockholm syndrome. This identification with the ruler is ubiquitous in statist societies.

A person who's never been near a military jet might say, "we bombed Iraq" or "we are fighting to bring democracy." In fact, the ruling elite are making the decisions, and their milfare minions are doing the killing.