"Anarcho"-Capitalism (Proprietarianism): A self-contradictory "philosophy"

[BurtWorm]

I was recently rereading parts of a dialogue/argument I was having with self-described "anarcho"-captialists about three years ago on Usenet, where I went by the handle "xofpi." The issues, I think, are kind of interesting, as they undergird a lot of American political thought, especially on the right. Basically, "anarcho"-capitalists believe in two basic principles (according to their FAQ):

1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissable.

My argument with them began when I challenged them to explain why, when they were so rabidly opposed to Clinton's "statism," they were so silent about Bushism's attacks on civil liberties. (This was in the summer after September 11.) These guys liked to boast that they were neither left nor right, but I found it then (and still find it) irritating, to say the least, that they cried year after year about Whitewater and Waco and remained totally silent about Bush/bin Laden and Jose Padilla. This silence, it seemed to me, betrayed a not-so-secret sympathy for the American right wing.

In any case, here is part of my argument against proprietarianism as a logically consistent and workable political program. Someone late to the thread had kust asked me if I was an anarchist:



I started this thread to critique a self-contradictory economic philosophy called "anarcho"-capitalism.

My criticism is basically this: capitalism requires government of some kind to
legitimize the private property capitalism requires to operate; thus, you can be
an anarchist, but it's self-contradictory to call yourself a capitalist at the
same time, and vice versa. The "anarcho"-capitalists, who should actually be
called proprietarians, argue that because they are opposed to a state that can
regulate capitalism, they are properly called anarchists. However, this can't be
for two reasons: a) anarchism has traditionally held that property is theft--it
is, therefore, essentially anti-proprietarian; and b) anarchism is not merely
against the state, but against any kind of arbitrary authority--it is,
therefore, anti-boss, which is to say, anti-capitalist. This discussion led into
a comparison of real anarchistic libertarianism, which is egalitarian in
nature--meaning that if liberty is desirable for one individul, it is desirable
for all individuals. Proprietarianism, on the other hand, is essentially
inegalitarian--even anti-egalitarian, and proudly so. Proprietarian
"libertarianism"--indeed, all right-wing "libertarianism"--is paradoxically
anti-libertarian for this very reason. This tributary of the main debate was
about this paradox.

To answer your question, I'm a Democrat on paper, and a democrat at heart. I
favor a more-or-less regulated capitalist system, with the belief that it's the
best we can hope for for now.

[salvorhardin]

1. xofpi?

Sounds like a Star Trek character. X of Pi -- The transcendental Borg.

[BurtWorm]

2. That was what a lot of my enemies thought I was.

Although, transcendental probably wasn't the adjective they were thinking. ;)

[Blue_Tires]

3. yes, i'm seeing more and more of these types

just couldn't put a name to it

[salvorhardin]

4. The thing that has always bothered me about anarchocapitalists

Is that they take so much for granted. The highways, the schools, the "services" like fire departments, police, etc. -- it's all one big externality to them. When you add in a little good old-fashioned American style Social Darwinism and anti-intellectualism, with a dash of exceptionalism and xenophobia then you've got the perfect recipe for a right wing Republican.

BTW: The anarchocapitalists that you were dealing with -- did they have a deep vein of conspiracism running through their beliefs? It seems to me that there's just something about that mindset that favors conspiracist explanations.

[BurtWorm]

11. Yes they were heavy into conspiracy theories.

I met these guys on a Usenet group called alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater. It was 2002 and they still considered Whitewater a current event! In fact they're probably still there.

[salvorhardin]

20. There's something about the origins of the far right wing

That is deeply rooted in conspiracism. Maybe it's because the modern conservative movement was born out of the John Birch Society and similar organizations.

[Solon]

5. One thing I always found annoying with these guys...

Quite a few are anti-union, which didn't make sense to me, you would think the right to organize is a INDIVIDUAL right that anyone can either join or create such a group. Yet they usually have little problem with OWNERS organizing in corporations, talk about hypocrisy!

[BurtWorm]

12. Exactly. Their paradise is for the bosses, not the workers.

Totally twisted.

[unpossibles]

6. interesting

I get into similar arguments/discussion with my capital "L" Libertarian father, where I see myself in more of the lowercase "l" libertarianism.

He complains about big government being full of bloated bureaucracy and corruption. I counter that in my experience with both, I feel that private corporations are equally if not more bloated and corrupt.

He feels that taxes should be 100% voluntary and also argues that people will pay. I counter that a lot of the people who can afford to don't pay now through various loopholes, off shore banking, and tax shelters. Also that I see taxes as a justifiable expense of having society - of having roads, a fire department, and the infrastructure required for people to make money, which goes back to my basic premise that no one lives in a vacuum, that every single person who has "made it" has done so because of the society in which they live. Even if a good number may have worked hard to get there, they also had a certain amount of luck, timing, and privilege/connections. I usually ask him if he plans on not calling the fire department if he has a house fire. He counters that everything should be privatized, including the police, yet claims that this won't lead to an even more corrupt "might makes right" style of amll "a" anarchic feudalism.

He also thinks Libraries are inherently wrong (because people don't have to pay the author a royalty to read a book).

The funny part is, even though he calls me a "socialist" I consider a healthy society (through certain social programs) to be the backbone of a healthy capitalist society. Healthy and content citizens makes better workers, better consumers, better neighbors, and just a better place to live. I don't see the two as exclusive, nor should they be.

I think the government's role is to help maintain a clean and healthy environment and to provide basic services such as fire and police, but it has no role in telling me or anyone else how to live if I am not harming others. I disagree with "morality" laws, such as drug and prostitution laws, although I am fine with the regulation of both.

I also find it ridiculous that to some companies, it is cheaper to break the law and pay a fine instead of doing the right thing in the first place - another argument against self-policing corporate practice; they don't self-police now (look at Enron or Time Warner or the phone company NSA spying scandal for proof).


Anyway, sorry to derail: I am trying to say I agree, that capitalism, in order to survive on the long term, needs regulation and an environment which protects the buyer and the seller.

[BurtWorm]

16. It's truly unfortunate that the right has co-opted "liberty" as its own.

Because liberty was the invention of the left.

[seg4527]

7. they're definitely not anarchists

i can't help but thinking it's just a bunch of economic libertarian nerds who want to sound cool and attach themselves to a philosophy that has helped bring a lot of achievements to society.

granted, most of what i read has been anarcho syndicalism, anarcho-communism as well as some of today's post-left stuff. but i can't see how anarcho-capitalism fits in to anything any anarchist has ever agued for.

anarchism is about freedom for individuals, not about freedom for institutions.

[BurtWorm]

15. They consider themselves individualists of a very high order.

The way Ayn Rand was an individualist, if you catch my meaning. But whereas most leftists think that individualism and equality are not only compatible but co-operative, these guys are fundamentally inegalitarian. Their idea of an individual is not the common person but the owner of property.

[wurzel]

8. Where are your "rights" when the whole world is owned by someone else?

We are allowing private corporations to own the entire resources of the world. So what happens to the future af the vast majority of the people who have no ownership stake? Take a look at China. That is the future!

[Terran1212]

9. Their system is BS from the top down

It's just ideology. It never works in reality; it would not pratically work and is not morally permissible even if it did.

They can just be quiet and sit down and read an economics book or something, realizing that the realistic majority will always outvote them.

[BurtWorm]

13. One of these guys told me all that was required to get such a system

to work was for everyone in the world to be reeducated to think like an anarcho-capitalist. :eyes:

[CJCRANE]

10. About the only example of an anarcho-capitalist country

is Somalia, which basically has no government worth the name.

The country is a basket-case.

[Gabi Hayes]

14. just a bunch of self centered PRICKS. Narcissto-capitalists

sounds like the way the Nazis ran Germany

they didn't mind RULES, as long as they were the ones to make them

there are always rules, regardless of whether one cares to ascribe to the conceit that their socalled economic system has any civil laws, or not

they're concerned only with the utter satisfaction of their each and every whim

a bunch of unevolved two year old, id-driven fascists

that's all they are

why do you even bother?

[BurtWorm]

19. I don't bother with them anymore.

But I did have a blast arguing with them. They think they're smarter and more rational than everybody else, but even right-wingers laugh about how stupid and illogical they are.

[Maddy McCall]

17. About as self-contradictory as "Christian Punk Anarchists"

There's a group of "Christian Punk Anarchists" here in my hometown. Against the establishment, but propping up the establishment all the while.

They have a band. They play "Christian Punk."


Yes, Anarcho-Capitalists--that's definitely self-contradictory.

[BurtWorm]

18. Christian punk anarchists?

Their version of Anarchy in the UK must be a real headbanger. :wtf:

[BurtWorm]

21. kick