About

Self proclaimed Anarcho-Capitalists are not not a unanimous group. Some bother to dispute any use at all for this seemingly oxymoronic term. I accept the term as valid. And I argue for it on bases of efficiency and morality. My central principals which lead me to argue for economic efficiency and morality are the non-aggression principal and property rights. I believe David Friedman and Rothbard to be both partially right and partially wrong on how they see anarcho-capitalism emerging as a new order. And I don’t see their distinct views as necessarily contradicting each other either. I also follow Ryan Faulk’s line of reasoning on how anarchy relates to natural emergent order. A related area of interest to me is psycho-history – the evolution of the human psyche. Which finally leads to apply my principals not just to the external and social realm, but also to my personal actions. Which is the greatest challenge for any activist.

So for those who showed up late…

Anarchy is a sentiment. It is a reaction to unjust or illegitimate authority. It is not, as many insist it is, resistance to all authority and all hierarchical relationships. Max Weber’s definition of the state compels anarchists to position themselves as anti-statists. Many historically renowned anarchists, self proclaimed or otherwise, have also attributed unjust authority to the church. And many to the boss, the capitalist, capital and to “property rights”. These anarcho-communist ideas were held to some degree by Proudhon, considered by many as the father of Anarchism. Proudhon’s market-mutualism did not change much in Europe but in the US, Tucker, Spooner and Carson, blended it with individualism and a more laissez-faire / market ideal. Rothbard was the fist to use the term anarcho-capitalist, integrating the logic of the austrian school economics with the moral arguments against unjust authority. Other Austrians reject moral anarchism and opt for arguments purely of efficiency. Conversely, as an Austrian and a “Molyneuvian”, I argue that anarchism is simply the logical conclusion of the constant application of Austrian Economics.  If one wants a precise and isolated definition for the word, I would suggest that anarchism is the absolute rejection of coercion.

I accept as valid that Capitalism can refer to an era in time. And for this reason I believe it is often consciously or unconsciously confused with Mercantilism and Corporatism and other such political economies. Rothbard, as do I, defines capitalism as a laissez-faire society, free of the coercion of the state.

An important reason for distinguishing anarcho-capitalism from the other anarchist schools of thought is the theory of value. Even modern-day US mutualists attempt to justify the labour theory of value. All labour based theories of value are dead. They are scientifically incorrect. What man now holds as true is subjective marginal utility. And one should not begin to discuss economics without a basic grasp of it. Therefore I propose that anarcho-capitalism is valid because it distinguishes anarchism that actually works from anarchism that is there in the spirit but not in the letter. And regarding capitalism, It distinguishes a free and stateless market, from the post-industrial revolution period.

Also I think the terms left and right in application to anarchism are somewhat arcane and antagonistic. While free-market ideals are considered right wing there are historical cases to the contrary. I have always been accused of being one or the other. I reject some left wing views and I accept other left wing views. At the same time I accept some right wing views and reject other right wing views. One thing is for sure though. If you are right wing, you will think I’m a communist. If you are left wing, you will think I’m a neo-fascist.