A Critique of Anarcho-Capitalism
This is all the rage over at Josh's house, supposedly. It's also totally unrealistic.
Anarcho-Capitalism (AC from here on out) is basically the natural endpoint on the far right of the free market continuum. Free-marketists want the government to stay out of the affairs of business (Laissez-Faire), which is the basic principle of our economic system, capitalism. AC solves the problem of government intervention by just getting rid of the government.
I've never been a free-marketist, personally. I've always felt that left to their own devices, corporations would destroy the world, or, at the very least, enslave all the workers. So naturally, I'm a little uneasy about anything that proposes removing governments to remove government control. But this really becomes a moot point when up against the rest of the troubles with it.
If you remember back to my piece on anarchy, you'll be able to understand the basic problems with a governmentless system. My biggest problem with it was that it would never remain anarchic for very long - soon after, small groups would form, and leaders would emerge that would serve the functions of tribal chieftains - basically dictators. Anarcho-Capitalism is even less useful because it puts in place the structures to destroy anarchy; namely, corporations. By putting people into positions of hierarchy (middle manager, CEO, mailboy, etc.) you have already laid the groundwork for exploitation and control. They argue that involvement in any corporation would be voluntary, but how voluntary can something be when your other option is starvation, since government safety nets don't exist?
To remedy this situation, proponents of AC rely on an absurd idea: that everyone would adhere to the beloved libertarian ideal of the "non-aggression axiom." First, this is a rule, and rules do not exist in an anarchic state (oxymoron!). Furthermore, this takes an extremely positive view of human nature. As a Hobbesian myself, I tend to believe humans are selfish and greedy by nature - just look around. To believe some abstract axiom would deter violence in a lawless society is absurd. Furthermore, the method with which to back this up is quite frightening. Libertarians are vicious opponents of any gun control, and in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, everyone would carry around a few guns with which to defend themselves and their property. What fun, eh?
Basically, the idea is absurd. But, Anarcho-Capitalists can cite examples of AC in history! What are they? The first isn't actually an Anarcho-Capitalist state, but they seem to overlook that. You see, they claim that Iceland from 930 - 1262 was an AC state. However, they seem to overlook the fact that there was a functioning federalist society - they had a parliament, the Althing, and tribal councils. So scratch that one. The other example, believe it or not: Somalia in 1992. Remember Black Hawk Down? Do you really want to live like that?
Refuted! Give it your best shot, Josh...
Anarcho-Capitalism (AC from here on out) is basically the natural endpoint on the far right of the free market continuum. Free-marketists want the government to stay out of the affairs of business (Laissez-Faire), which is the basic principle of our economic system, capitalism. AC solves the problem of government intervention by just getting rid of the government.
I've never been a free-marketist, personally. I've always felt that left to their own devices, corporations would destroy the world, or, at the very least, enslave all the workers. So naturally, I'm a little uneasy about anything that proposes removing governments to remove government control. But this really becomes a moot point when up against the rest of the troubles with it.
If you remember back to my piece on anarchy, you'll be able to understand the basic problems with a governmentless system. My biggest problem with it was that it would never remain anarchic for very long - soon after, small groups would form, and leaders would emerge that would serve the functions of tribal chieftains - basically dictators. Anarcho-Capitalism is even less useful because it puts in place the structures to destroy anarchy; namely, corporations. By putting people into positions of hierarchy (middle manager, CEO, mailboy, etc.) you have already laid the groundwork for exploitation and control. They argue that involvement in any corporation would be voluntary, but how voluntary can something be when your other option is starvation, since government safety nets don't exist?
To remedy this situation, proponents of AC rely on an absurd idea: that everyone would adhere to the beloved libertarian ideal of the "non-aggression axiom." First, this is a rule, and rules do not exist in an anarchic state (oxymoron!). Furthermore, this takes an extremely positive view of human nature. As a Hobbesian myself, I tend to believe humans are selfish and greedy by nature - just look around. To believe some abstract axiom would deter violence in a lawless society is absurd. Furthermore, the method with which to back this up is quite frightening. Libertarians are vicious opponents of any gun control, and in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, everyone would carry around a few guns with which to defend themselves and their property. What fun, eh?
Basically, the idea is absurd. But, Anarcho-Capitalists can cite examples of AC in history! What are they? The first isn't actually an Anarcho-Capitalist state, but they seem to overlook that. You see, they claim that Iceland from 930 - 1262 was an AC state. However, they seem to overlook the fact that there was a functioning federalist society - they had a parliament, the Althing, and tribal councils. So scratch that one. The other example, believe it or not: Somalia in 1992. Remember Black Hawk Down? Do you really want to live like that?
Refuted! Give it your best shot, Josh...
posted by Jimmy at 3:10 AM
4 Comments:
Jim, you keep on insisting on "complete" anarchy. There are degrees of dedication to any type of government, and one such as this would represent a degree of anarchy which is sutible to perpetuate the capatilist ideals of the "state". In reality I feel this government type (as upposed to the lack there of, as the name might suggest) would exist on a minimilist basis as the need of the people see fit.
You are correct in suggesting that there are different levels of government that could exist in an "Anarcho-Capitalist" state, such as the federalistic society that existed in Iceland. However, the failures of weak central governments have been proven many times over, with the example coming to mind being the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1776-1789. A weak central government will give rise to increasingly powerful and competitive minor states, which is what AC attempts to create, for the sake of business competition. However, history is replete with examples of smaller governmental units leading to an increase in suffering for the common man - feudal Europe and Japan during the Age of War being the two prime examples. I'm not opposing a Federo-Capitalist state on theoretical grounds, but moral ones.
Jim, the same can be said about countries with strong central governments. I seem to recall one falling, oh 1989-1991, somewhere around there. Crazy name, what was it called again? Yeah, all I can rememeber is that it was one of the most governed countries in history.
Yes, the Soviet Union. But it collapsed because of two issues - one was the competition with the United States in arms manufacturing, a battle the much poorer and less populated Soviet Union could never win; the other was Mikhail Gorbachev's attempts at reform, perestroika, which got out of hand once the population had a taste of freedom. Granted, I'm not bemoaning the fall of the Soviet Union, but pointing out that most heavily centralized governments will fail because of external pressures and/or internal attempts at reform. Rome is an excellent example. Though the Roman Empire had a very effective centralized government considering the inherent difficulties of ruling such a large area in that time period, they were able to maintain their empire for nearly a thousand years. What brought about the decline and eventual downfall? The Gauls, Goths, Huns, Vandals, and Parthians from the outside, and Christianity from the inside. But yes, eventually all empires fall, large and small, strong and weak - it is just a question of how sustainable it is.
Post a Comment
<< Home