The merits of minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism are a matter of serious debate, albeit not tension, between members of YAL. Cato Sr. Fellow Dr. Tom Palmer was kind enough to do an interview with me, which included extensive discussion on this topic (click below the jump for more):
Considering that anarcho-capitalism could never exist without prior state intervention, I'm not sure why anyone at YAL takes it seriously.
Explain why? And are you really saying that folks like Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, who have contributed 1,000,000x more to liberty than you or I, do not have serious perspectives?
I'm saying that accepting 100% of Rothbard and Rockwell's perspective as correct is borderline cultish. I'll make a post about what I'm referring to when I have a bit more time.
I am not saying you should agree with everything they say. I am just arguing their philosophies are serious, contra your original post.
I don't know of anyone who has said we should blindly agree with everything MNR or LR and suppress disagreement when we don't.
I think an anarcho-capitalist should try to figure out how to explain to the world how to justify the existing concentration of capital, which has occurred largely due to state intervention, in the world after the hypothetical demise of the state. Anarcho-capitalism would work if you were starting from scratch, but the fact is that massive amounts of capital have already been distributed using fractional reserve banking, subsidies, taxes, and state force. Thus you are left with only two options - redistribute the capital using force in a more egalitarian way (i.e. the idealogical leftist state) or exist in a world where the state has already concentrated 99.9% of the capital into the ruling class, and then the free market game begins. Choosing between those two, I'd choose the former.
Not to mention that capitalism itself was triggered, financed, and sustained largely due to and thanks to state intervention in the economy. A free market and capitalism are by no means the same thing.
Not to mention that the idea of voluntarism and freedom, as utilized by capitalism, has all the shortcomings of modern definitions like those espoused by Locke and Hobbes when, in fact, true freedom requires a much broader definition that is utilized more by those like Rousseau, Marx, and the post-moderns. Freedom is not just freedom from government coercion but all other forms of coercion as well, including, but not restricted to, environmental coercion, economic coercion and physical coercion.
All this is to say that capitalism is not the best guarantor of liberty, especially because of its need for hierarchy and accumulation of capital. In an anarcho-capitalist system, the definitions of liberty and the overall interpretation of justice are too narrow to actually provide the most beneficial outcome for mankind.
While I promote other forms of anarchy as better than most government systems, in the debate between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, I have to go with the system that rejects the absolute commodification of everything bearing even loose societal relevance or relationship. What minarchism, or government structures in general, provides is the sanctity of the more metaphysical things like life and freedom. Because rights in a minarchist system, as opposed to an anarcho-capitalist structure, are protected by the government they do not have to be objectified and dissected into economic units capable of interacting in market processes.
Life and liberty are priceless, and while an anarcho-capitalist system may provide for some modicum of protection it does two things that compromise the integrity of these values. First, it subjects them to the process of commodification, demystifying the rightfully mystical. Essentially, by placing prices on life and liberty the an-cap system enslaves these subjective, metaphysical qualities to the economic, quantifiable measurements of the market. Second, an an-cap system identifies property with liberty. However, the synonymy between property and liberty are either too narrow or too broad to be considered legitimate. Also, constructing a system of justice based entirely upon the possession and transfer of property is deeply flawed and is prone to many inevitable flaws and severe devolutions.
I would urge anyone who stumbles upon this post to ignore the armchair philosophers who post here and read anarcho-capitalist literature for themselves before they dismiss it entirely. It's the only truly consistent philosophy, and we would be better off as a movement without minarchist smear campaigns against us more radical (and ethical) libertarians.
yo. im an anarchist too, but you've got to admit that an-cap arguments are philosophically and economically weak. even those that are internally consistent rely on near ideal economic conditions. its all alittle too ceteris paribus to believe. and im not sure that a system of commodification is that ethical.
Nice ad hominem argument.
The merits of minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism are a matter of serious debate. It's normal because thire is many things to disscas...
nuevo audi a4
Post new comment