The Deep State Out in the Open Calls for a Military Coup against Trump

The Deep State Out in the Open Calls for a Military Coup against Trump

This past Christmas at a social gathering of some former high school classmates I had a brief conversation with an old friend, a liberal—I still have one liberal friend, but he’s about the only one left.  Aware of my positions on issues, and, yes, having actually read a few of the columns and essays I’ve written over the years, my friend—let’s call him Dave—enjoys needling me as a “conspiracy theorist.” And at that event he was at it again.
I don’t mind his banter, and, in a jocular fashion, I hand it right back at him.
This past Christmas Dave was all exercised about some of my pieces on “the Deep State,” and insisted that such discussion was nothing more than “right-wing talking points,” “conspiratorial exaggerations about legitimate government,” and, basically, much ado about nothing. The Deep State he explained, did not really exist—rather, I was “making it all up,” and that my criticism was actually misdirected at noble professionals who had dedicated their lives and careers to what he termed “the betterment of all Americans.”
How dare I attack those hard-working men and women who actually “made this country work!” [I am quoting his words, as I distinctly remember them.]
I don’t think my conversation that isolated in today’s America. But I also believe that the more zealous and frenzied the opposition to President Trump becomes, the more the reality of the Deep State has also become. As I have written previously, the election of the “great disruptor” has forced the administrative and managerial elites, fearful of losing their power and influence, increasingly out of the closet into the open. Indeed, Donald Trump, with all his bluster and unorthodox (according to Washington DC) manner of doing and saying things, has torn the mask off, at least partially, of the permanent, largely faceless bureaucratic class that has for so long dominated this country…and our lives.


But until recently, a full admission of this from the agents of the Deep State was unthinkable. The narrative was exactly that of my friend Dave: those upright and dedicated bureaucrats and experts, in government and in think tanks, were simply doing their job as professionals…but now that uncouth and ignorant “bull-in-a-china-shop” Donald Trump had attacked them, and he was thus “endangering our democracy” because of it.
Speaking, as it were, for most of the major media, Glenn Carle, a former CIA “clandestine services officer and an expert on national security,” called the very idea of a Deep State a “dark conspiracy.” Joined by other members of our intelligence agencies, he declared in May 2017:
The president has cast doubt on proven truths, undermined the laws, undermined the judiciary, the free press, the intelligence community…He’s undermined the very values upon which this society was built. So, what do you do if you’re an intelligence official? …This dilemma…has been widely discussed among those in the intelligence community, who have been forced to assess which is the greater threat: Trump’s “authoritarian tendencies” which threaten “the fabric of the nation,” or the clear national-security risks posed by a sustained stream of classified information being made public….”When leaks come from the intelligence community, it’s not to undermine the president or to protect the deep state. It’s to protect democracy — it stems from a sense of profound patriotism,” Carle said. “The deep state does not exist in fact but it exists in the minds of Trump supporters…”
Talk about “projection”!  Protecting democracy—by undermining it?…when for decades this country (as most of the nations in Europe) has been virtually ruled and governed by an unelected, untouchable caste of managers whose vision increasingly centers on a universalist globalism in which the citizens of the American republic will have become mere cogs: do your work, pay taxes, but shut up and don’t ask questions about “things that don’t concern you,” like running this country.
But now that symbol and beacon of the American Establishment, The New York Times, has come full circle: yes, the Deep State DOES indeed exist, it asserts, but that is actually a “good thing,” good for you and good for the country. Perhaps the insistent talk by the president and increasingly by some conservatives forced the Times out from the shadows?
Here was the headline of the Times editorial on October 20, 2019: “They Are Not the Resistance. They Are Not a Cabal. They Are Public Servants.”
Ironically, this admission/defense by “the Grey Lady” comes just a few days after a major Leftist columnist and contributing editor to Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi, blew the whistle on his fellow bedfellows. In a major essay—curiously not heralded on Fox and ignored by such media as CNN and MSNBC—Taibbi, no friend at all to President Trump or his policies, suggested that his friends on the frenetic Left “might soon wish they just waited to vote their way out of the Trump era,” and that, indeed, we ARE living through an attempted “coup” against the president and his agenda, that we are watching an hysterical effort to negate and undo the results of the 2016 election by any means.
Taibbi wishes to see the president gone, but he also sees that what is happening before us in Congress, in the press, and in academia,  is worse, far more damaging and dangerous to the survival of the American republic than the perceived infractions or lese-majeste’ of Donald Trump. The consequences of what the Left, the Democrats, and Never Trumpers are attempting and inciting are, in fact, driving a poisonous and violent stake into what is left of the republic.
I pass on a slightly-edited copy of Taibbi essay. Notice near the beginning as he writes about our divided country, he intimates that “we are speeding toward a situation when someone in one of these camps refuses to obey a major decree, arrest order, or court decision, at which point Americans will get to experience the joys of their political futures being decided by phone calls to generals and police chiefs.”
That incredibly chilling prediction is undergirded by an OpEd, again in The New York Times, by retired Admiral and Clinton loyalist, William McRaven [“Our Republic is Under Attack from the President,” October 18], in which he argues forcefully “that senior military leaders have lost confidence in the president and feel he is a threat to the nation,” and that “action” must be taken, “the sooner the better.” In other words…a military coup.
See: We’re in a permanent coup.

The Beginning Of The End

The Beginning Of The End
The Social Decay That We See All Around Us Is Absolutely Breathtaking
End of the American Dream,

Throughout human history we have seen great nations rise and fall, and for many of them it was not actually an external threat that took them down.  When the social decay inside a society gets bad enough, it is just a matter of time before that society falls apart.  That is why what is happening to the United States is so deeply troubling.  Everywhere around us there is evidence that the social order in this country is rotting.  At one time we were the most respected nation on the entire planet, but now we have become the laughingstock of the world.  And instead of setting a good example for the rest of us, our leaders are some of the greatest examples of corruption and filth.
Our founders would be absolutely nauseated if they could see what our federal government has become today.  There is so much corruption in Congress that nobody is really fazed when yet another scandal breaks.  This week, the public learned about the twisted sexual adventures of Democratic congresswoman Katie Hill, and there isn’t that much public outrage because we have come to expect this sort of thing from our representatives.  The following is how the Daily Mail summarized some of the key facts in this case…



Hill was pictured kissing and brushing her young female staffer’s hair, who DailyMail.com can identify as Morgan Desjardins from Santa Clarita, California
The then 22-year-old began a throuple relationship with Hill and her husband Kenny Heslep shortly after she started working for Hill in 2017
Texts and photos between Hill, Heslep and Desjardins reveal their throuple was steamy at first, but ended with Hill leaving them ‘high and dry’
The congresswoman was also seen posing naked while smoking a bong on 9/11 in 2017, as a tattoo of a Nazi-era Iron Cross on her bikini line is on full display
It has also come out that Hill and her husband posted nude photos of her on “wife sharing” websites in 2016.
Is this really who we want representing us in Washington?
Hill has also been accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with legislative director Graham Kelly.  At first she lied and completely denied it, but after a ton of evidence came out she was finally forced to admit what happened…
On Tuesday, Hill said she did not have a relationship with legislative director Graham Kelly, but she walked back that account the next day, saying in a letter to constituents that she got involved with Kelly “during the final tumultuous years of my abusive marriage,” the Los Angeles Times reported.
“I know that even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate, but I still allowed it to happen despite my better judgment,” the letter read.
Having a sexual relationship with a subordinate is so serious that it could potentially get Hill kicked out of Congress, but if she survives she will probably be re-elected in 2020.
So far, it is mostly Republicans that are calling for her to resign, but that is only because she is a Democrat.
When the extremely disgusting sexual behavior of Republican members of Congress is brought up, all of a sudden “conservatives” have all sorts of excuses about why they should be allowed to stay in office.
If you only condemn sexually immoral behavior when a member of the other party does it, you are a hypocrite.
Speaking of weird and twisted sexually behavior, it is certainly not limited to members of Congress.  For example, just check out what a Florida man recently did in the toy department of a Target store…
A man has been arrested for having sex with a stuffed ‘Olaf’ snowman toy in front of horrified shoppers at a Target store in Florida.
Cody Meader was detained on Tuesday afternoon after repulsed eyewitnesses claim they saw him ‘dry-humping’ the large snowman toy from Disney’s ‘Frozen’ at the store in St Petersburg.
I am almost hoping to find out that we was on drugs, because nobody in their right mind should ever do such a thing.
What is wrong with us?  It is almost as if a large percentage of the population has been transformed into drooling zombies without any social awareness whatsoever.
This next story is perhaps even more disturbing.  In one county in Georgia, a group of sex offenders is suing the sheriff because he was putting signs in their front lawns warning children not to trick-or-treat at their homes…
A group of sex offenders in the U.S. state of Georgia are suing a sheriff’s department after local authorities placed “No Trick-Or-Treat At This Address!!” signs on the front lawns of their homes.
While Butts County Sheriff Gary Long claims that the move is meant to keep children safe on Halloween, the pedophiles claim that the move was unjust and violates their rights to privacy and free speech.
But I haven’t shared the most shocking part of this story with you yet.
Last October, the sheriff put up more than 200 warning signs because there are that many registered sex offenders that live in his relatively small county…
On September 24, attorney Mark Yurachek filed a complaint on behalf of plaintiffs Christopher Reed, Reginald Holden, and Corey McClendon, all of whom served prison time for sexual offenses against children. The court filing accuses the sheriff’s office of putting up warning signs on the front lawns of over 200 registered sex offenders in the county last October.
Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly.
Today, there are more than 859,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and that number is growing rapidly each year.
Switching gears, what would an article about social decay be without at least some discussion of the human feces in our streets?
Normally I bring up examples on the west coast, but today let me share with you what has been happening in downtown Miami…

The Beginning Of The End
Michael Snyder
.

“The situation is the worst I’ve seen in my 25 years here,” said business owner Jose Goyanes. “The stench is really bad, even after you hose it down. We see people urinating against buildings or pulling their pants down and squatting because they have nowhere else to go.”
Deposits of human waste can be seen in planters, doorways, gutters — or right in the middle of the block. The pavement behind the old Macy’s department store is soaked with urine. Feces ferment in front of vacant storefronts for days when there’s no landlord to clean up. People who work and live downtown are calling in a Code Brown.
Sadly, this is a perfect metaphor for what is happening to the country as a whole.
We need to call a “Code Brown” on the entire nation, because America is rapidly being transformed into a rotting, decaying cesspool of filth, corruption and wickedness.

Reprinted with permission from End of the American Dream.

Freedoms in the United States of America, the Bill of Right

Freedoms in the United States of America, the Bill of Right

The Flag of the United States

Old Glory | Source

The Bill of Rights Document

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The quote is part of the preamble to the Bill of Rights document that indicates that the States and the Congress have the right to amend the Constitution of the United States of America. See references section below.

They are stating that our government recognizes that it has a duty to clarify and institute regulations regarding our rights as citizens and as human beings without regard to:

• race
• color
• religion
• sex
• age
• disability
• national origin
• ancestry
• sexual orientation
• gender identity
• marital status
• parental status
• veteran status
• military discharge status
• citizenship status
• source of income
• or any other protected status.

Amendment One:

the freedom of: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petitions

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As writers, journalists and even as HubPages authors, this amendment affects us the most.

Many hubbers write about religion. They use their free speech rights to do so. This means that we are free to criticize any religion we want to. We are free, in this country, to say and write whatever we feel like saying and writing. A religion may dictate to its followers, but it may not dictate to the American public.

We are also free to say and write and use words that are considered inflammatory, insulting, rude and socially unacceptable. You are free to rebut those words.

We are also free to assemble a group of like-minded people and petition our government or other groups to try to sway their opinions about things.

The members of the Press are given special dispensations for saying and writing about whatever they want to say and write about and to protect their sources from freedom of speech persecution.

Ammendment Two

The right to establish a military force to protect our country, and the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This one simple sentence continues to this day to be a huge source of aggravation and debate.

There is no question that a country needs a military force. We must defend ourselves against those that seek to invade and take by force our land and homes. This is our right as a nation. It would be lovely if we didn't have to do this, but until evolution brings us to a more peaceful nature, we must have a protective military. No one truly debates this.

As for each and every one of us having the right to bear arms, just because we have the right to do so, doesn't mean we should all go out and buy guns.

Indeed this is currently a highly regulated area that continues to be the most misconstrued amendment.

Amendment Three

Soldier's quarters must be regulated.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Well, this is one you don't really hear about! Apparently, we have the right to refuse a bed to the military during times of peace, and must be legally compelled to do so in times of war.

This sets up the stage for the huge budget of the military! They have the right to build quarters for the fighting soldiers in both peacetime and wartime.

Amendment Four

The right to refuse an unlawful search, and an unlawful seizure of property without a legal warrant.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Supreme Court recently ruled that in some cases it is perfectly all right to search and seize without a warrant. This is called the "no knock" warrant¹.

People, themselves, often relinquish their right to unlawful search and seizures by actually consenting to be searched without probable cause.

Whenever a cop stops you on the side of the road, they can pretty much get away with anything these days. Your best bet is to keep your mouth shut if approached by a police officer and never, ever consent to a search without a properly executed warrant!

Stand up for your rights and those of every other citizen.

Amendment Five:

The right to a grand jury, a military court, not be charged twice for the same crime, be excused from self incrimination, not have your property confiscated, not be imprisoned without due course of law.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This is why the Miranda warning was sent down by the Supreme Court.

If you are ever arrested, be sure to exercise this very important right!

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement.²

Amendment Six

We have a right to a speedy trial, knowledge of what we are being accused of, witness confrontation, subpoenas, a lawyer that will defend us

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Unfortunately, our jails have become the most crowded and overused institutions in the world.

Of course, citizens need to do their civic duty and respond to the call for jury selections and witnesses.

Amendment Seven

We have the right to a speedy trial and a judgement based on facts

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Did you notice the 'double jeopardy' clause? If you are tried by a jury and the facts are ruled on by a jury, A retrial should not be allowed.

Amendment Eight

We have a right to fair bail amounts, fair fine amounts, and fairness in punishments

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

This amendment is mostly used in the 'cruel and unusual' defense. A very high bail amount would be considered unusual. An excessive fine would be cruel. Unjust imprisonment, up to and including, the death penalty, would definitely be considered cruel by most people.

Amendment Nine

This list of rights is incomplete. Other rights may be added through process of government.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Because every human right could never be listed or even explained, this amendment was thrown in as a 'catch-all' kind of thing.

Basically, it states, that just because it isn't listed and numbered, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Amendment Ten

Federal laws versus state laws versus the will of the people

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It would be very hard to designate every State's Rights versus every Federal Right, but this little amendment attempts to cover that situation in a rather broad statement.

This amendment is a very important one when it comes to constitutional law. But basically, if the Federal government makes a law, the individual states may or may not incorporate that law. The people of each state may or may not have a say in the ratification of said Federal laws.

What Do You Think?

What's Your Favorite 'Right'?

• Freedom of Speech
• The Right to Bear Arms
• Housing a Soldier
• Unlawful Search and Seizure
• Can't Incriminate Onesefl
• Speedy Trials
• Trial by Jury
• No Cruel and Unusual Punishments
• Eneumerated Rights
• Separation of Federal and State

See results

References:

You think you know what the constitution says? Think again. How long has it been since you have actually read it?

The ten stated "rights" are taken from the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. You can reference each individual right by visiting the National Archives.

1. No-Knock Warrant | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute; Friday, August 30, 2019, 10:35:56 AM

2. The Miranda Warning; Wikipedia; Friday, September 06, 2019, 10:40:30 PM

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism 

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and modern school of anarchist thought^[a] that advocates the elimination of centralized state domination in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute (which they describe as law by arbitrary autocratic decrees, or bureaucratic legislation swayed by transitory political special interest groups), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market (in what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").^[1][2]

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors selected by consumers rather than centrally through "confiscatory" taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would therefore be regulated directly by victims and their directly selected agents through market-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies, which they believe tend to generate corruption through the collectivization of property and distortion of market signals.^[3]

Business regulations, such as corporate standards, public relations, product labels, rules for consumer protection, ethics, and labor relations would be regulated voluntarily via the use of competitive trade associations, professional societies, and standards bodies; this would, in theory, establish market-recourse for businesses' decisions and allow the market to communicate effectively with businesses by the use of consumer unions, instead of centralized regulatory mandates for companies imposed by the state, which anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians argue is inefficient^[4] due to regulatory capture.

Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. However, the first person to use the term was Murray Rothbard who, in the mid-20th century, synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (while rejecting their labor theory of value and the norms they derived from it).^[5] A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".^[6] This pact would recognize self-ownership, property, contracts, and tort law, in keeping with the universal non-aggression principle (NAP).

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small Jeffersonian night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals and their properties from foreign and domestic aggression; and from other anarchists who seek to abolish private property (that they distinguish from personal property^[7][8]) and other aspects of capitalism.

Contents

• 1Philosophy
  • 1.1Ethics
  • 1.2Property
    • 1.2.1Private property
    • 1.2.2Common property
  • 1.3Economics
  • 1.4Contractual society
  • 1.5Law and order and the use of violence
• 2Branches
• 3Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools
• 4History
  • 4.1Classical liberalism
  • 4.219th century individualist anarchism in the United States
• 5Historical precedents
  • 5.1Free cities of medieval Europe
  • 5.2Medieval Iceland
  • 5.3American Old West
  • 5.4Gaelic Ireland
  • 5.5Law merchant, admiralty law and early common law
  • 5.6Somalia from 1991 to 2006
• 6Criticism
  • 6.1The state, justice and defense
  • 6.2Rights and freedom
  • 6.3Economics and property
• 7Literature
  • 7.1Nonfiction
  • 7.2Fiction
• 8See also
• 9References
• 10Notes
• 11Further reading
• 12External links

Philosophy

Ethics

Symbol of voluntaryism using anarcho-capitalism colors

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (in sum, all relationships that they believe are not caused by threats or violence, including exchanges of money, consumer goods, land and capital goods) in order to minimize conflict while maximizing individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic.^[9] Although anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public^{[clarification needed]} or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.^[10] For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the "compulsory state". Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just and most economically beneficial way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.^[11]

Anarcho-capitalists see free market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market^[12] (Rothbard is credited with coining the term "anarcho-capitalism").^[13][14] "Capitalism", as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action.^[15] They therefore reject the state, seeing it as an entity which steals property (through taxation and expropriation), initiates aggression, has a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, uses its coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, creates artificial monopolies, restricts trade and restricts personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality and the like.

Many anarchists view capitalism as an inherently authoritarian and hierarchical system and seek the abolishment of private property.^[16] There is disagreement between these left anarchists and laissez-faire anarcho-capitalists^[17] as the former generally rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism and considers anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron,^[18][19][20] while the latter holds that the abolishment of private property would require expropriation which is counterproductive to order and would require a state.^[3] On the Nolan chart, anarcho-capitalists are located at the extreme edge of the libertarian quadrant since they reject state involvement in both economic and personal affairs.^[21]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state relies on initiating force because force can be used against those who have not stolen personal property, vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud. Many also argue that subsidized monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient. Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in.^[22] Many anarcho-capitalists also argue that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Furthermore, Linda and Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.^[23]

Rothbard bases his philosophy on natural law grounds and also provides economic explanations of why he thinks anarcho-capitalism is preferable on pragmatic grounds as well. David D. Friedman says he is not an absolutist rights theorist, but is also "not a utilitarian". However, he does believe that "utilitarian arguments are usually the best way to defend libertarian views".^[24] Peter Leeson argues that "the case for anarchy derives its strength from empirical evidence, not theory".^[25] Hans-Hermann Hoppe instead uses "argumentation ethics" for his foundation of "private property anarchism",^[26] which is closer to Rothbard's natural law approach:

I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.

— Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State

Rothbard used the term "anarcho-capitalism" to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property[27] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism.[28] Other terms sometimes used for this philosophy, though not necessarily outside anarcho-capitalist circles, include: Anti-state capitalism Anti-state marketism Capitalist anarchism Free market anarchism Individualist anarchism[29] Market anarchism Natural order[30] Ordered anarchy[30] Polycentric law Private-law society[30] Private-property anarchy[30] Pure capitalism Radical capitalism[30] Stateless capitalism Stateless liberalism Voluntaryism

While the Friedmanian formulation of anarcho-capitalism is robust to the presence of violence and in fact assumes some degree of violence will occur,^[31] anarcho-capitalism as formulated by Rothbard and others holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From these twin axioms – self-ownership and "homesteading" – stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.^[32]

Rothbard's defense of the self-ownership principle stems from what he believed to be his falsification of all other alternatives, namely that either a group of people can own another group of people, or the other alternative, that no single person has full ownership over one's self. Rothbard dismisses these two cases on the basis that they cannot result in a universal ethic, i.e. a just natural law that can govern all people, independent of place and time. The only alternative that remains to Rothbard is self-ownership, which he believes is both axiomatic and universal.^[33]

In general, the nonaggression axiom can be said to be a prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons (i.e. direct violence, assault, murder) or property (i.e. fraud, burglary, theft and taxation).^[34] The initiation of force is usually referred to as aggression or coercion. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom. Minarchist libertarians, such as most people involved in libertarian political parties, would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive form, retaining at the very least public police, courts and military. However, others might give further allowance for other government programs. In contrast, anarcho-capitalists reject any level of state intervention, defining the state as a coercive monopoly and—as the only entity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression—an entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism.^[33]

Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Rothbard, accept the nonaggression axiom on an intrinsic moral or natural law basis. It is in terms of the non-aggression principle that Rothbard defined anarchism, "a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and property']"; and said that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion".^[35] In an interview published in the libertarian journal New Banner, Rothbard said that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism".^[36]

Property

Private property

Central to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are the concepts of self-ownership and original appropriation that combines personal and private property:

Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke's phrase, 'mixing one's labor' with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.^[37]

Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements. Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (includes opposition to the state) Contract: a voluntary binding agreement between persons Coercion: physical force or threat of such against persons or property Capitalism: economic system where the means of production are privately owned and where investments, production, distribution, income and prices are determined through the operation of a free market rather than by statutory regulation Free market: a market where all decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods) and services are voluntary Fraud: inducing one to part with something of value through the use of dishonesty State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion Voluntary: any action not influenced by coercion or fraud perpetrated by any human agency

This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights and where they differ from collectivist forms of anarchism such as anarcho-communism, where the means of production are controlled by the whole community and the product of labor is collectivized in a pool of goods and distributed "according to need" (which is to be determined and enforced collectively).^{[citation needed]} Anarcho-capitalists advocate individual or joint (i.e. private) ownership of the means of production and the product of labor regardless of what the individual "needs" or does not "need". As Rothbard says, "if every man has the right to own his own body and if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product that he has made".^{[non sequitur]} After property is transformed through labor, it may then only exchange hands legitimately by trade or gift – forced transfers are considered illegitimate. Original appropriation allows an individual to claim any never-before used resources, including land and by improving or otherwise using it, own it with the same "absolute right" as his own body. According to Rothbard, property can only come about through labor, therefore original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely claiming it or building a fence around it—it is only by using land and by mixing one's labor with it that original appropriation is legitimized: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be". Rothbard argues that the resource need not continue to be used in order for it to be the person's property as "for once his labor is mixed with the natural resource, it remains his owned land. His labor has been irretrievably mixed with the land, and the land is therefore his or his assigns' in perpetuity".^[38] As a practical matter, in terms of the ownership of land anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few (if any) parcels of land left on Earth whose ownership was not at some point in time obtained in violation of the homestead principle, through "seizure by the state or put in private hands with the assistance of the state". Rothbard says:

It is not enough to call simply for defense of "the rights of private property"; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be "private" must now be defended by libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.^[28]

Rothbard says in Justice and Property Right that "any identifiable owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded his property". In the case of slavery, Rothbard says that in many cases "the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed". He believes slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work on under the "homestead principle". If property is held by the state, Rothbard advocates its confiscation and "return to the private sector", saying that "any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible". For example, he proposes that state universities be seized by the students and faculty under the homestead principle. Rothbard also supports expropriation of nominally "private property" if it is the result of state-initiated force, such as businesses who receive grants and subsidies. He proposes that businesses who receive at least 50% of their funding from the state be confiscated by the workers. He says: "What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not 'private' property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property". Likewise, Karl Hess says that "libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called private [...] Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All of it is deeply intertwined with an immoral, coercive state system".^[39] By accepting an axiomatic definition of private property and property rights, anarcho-capitalists deny the legitimacy of a state on principle:

For, apart from ruling out as unjustified all activities such as murder, homicide, rape, trespass, robbery, burglary, theft, and fraud, the ethics of private property is also incompatible with the existence of a state defined as an agency that possesses a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and/or the right to tax.^[37]

Common property

Although anarcho-capitalists assert a right to private property, some anarcho-capitalists also point out that common, i.e. community, property can exist by right in an anarcho-capitalist system. Just as an individual comes to own that which was unowned by mixing his labor with it or using it regularly, a whole community or society can come to own a thing in common by mixing their labor with it collectively, meaning that no individual may appropriate it as his own. This may apply to roads, parks, rivers and portions of oceans.^[10] Anarchist theorist Roderick T. Long gives the following example:

Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms – not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor – not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned.^[40]

Nevertheless, since anarcho-capitalists believe that property that is owned collectively tends to lose the level of accountability found in individual ownership^[3] to the extent of the number of owners—and make consensus regarding property use and maintenance decisions proportionately less likely—anarcho-capitalists generally distrust and seek to avoid intentional communal arrangements. Privatization, decentralization and individualization are often anarcho-capitalist goals. However, in some cases they not only provide a challenge, but are considered next to impossible. Established ocean routes, for example, are generally seen as unavailable for private appropriation.^{[citation needed]}

Anarcho-capitalists tend to concur with free market environmentalists regarding the "environmentally destructive tendencies of the state and other communal arrangements". Air, water and land pollution, for example, are seen as the result of collectivization of ownership. They believe that central governments generally strike down individual or class action censure of polluters in order to benefit "the many" and legal or economic subsidy of heavy industry is justified by many politicians for job creation within a political territory.^[3]

Economics

The Austrian School of economics argued against the viability of socialism and centrally planned economic policy. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, a colleague of Austrian school founder Carl Menger, wrote one of the first critiques of socialism in his treatise The Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism. Later, Friedrich von Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom (1944), which states that a command economy lacks the information function of market prices and that central authority over the economy leads to totalitarianism. Another Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, wrote Human Action, an early exposition of the method he called praxeology.

Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) coined the word anarcho-capitalism

Rothbard attempted to meld Austrian economics with classical liberalism and individualist anarchism. He wrote his first paper advocating "private property anarchism" in 1949 and later came up with the alternative name "anarcho-capitalism". He was probably the first to use "libertarian" in its current United States pro-capitalist sense. His academic training was in economics, but his writings also refer to history and political philosophy. When young, he considered himself part of the Old Right, an anti-statist and anti-interventionist branch of the Republican Party. In the late 1950s, he was briefly involved with Ayn Rand, but later had a falling-out. When interventionist Cold Warriors of the National Review, such as William F. Buckley Jr., gained influence in the Republican Party in the 1950s, Rothbard quit that group and briefly associated himself with left-wing antiwar groups. He believed that the Cold Warriors were more indebted in theory to the left and imperialist progressives, especially with respect to Trotskyist theory.^[41] Rothbard opposed the founding of the Libertarian Party, but joined in 1973 and became one of its leading activists.

Contractual society

A postage stamp celebrating the thousandth anniversary of the Icelandic parliament—according to a theory associated with the economist David D. Friedman, medieval Icelandic society had some features of anarcho-capitalism; chieftaincies could be bought and sold and were not geographical monopolies; and individuals could voluntarily choose membership in any chieftain's clan

The society envisioned by anarcho-capitalists has been called the "contractual society"—i.e. "a society based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence"^[38] in which anarcho-capitalists assert the system relies on voluntary agreements (contracts) between individuals as the legal framework. It is difficult to predict precisely what the particulars of this society will look like because of the details and complexities of contracts.

One particular ramification is that transfer of property and services must be considered voluntarily on the part of both parties. No external entities can force an individual to accept or deny a particular transaction. An employer might offer insurance and death benefits to same-sex couples—another might refuse to recognize any union outside his or her own faith. Individuals are free to enter into or reject contractual agreements as they see fit.

Rothbard points out that corporations would exist in a free society as they are simply the pooling of capital. He says limited liability for corporations could also exist through contract: "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation".^[38] However, corporations created in this way would not be able to replicate the limit on liabilities arising non-contractually, such as liability in tort for environmental disasters or personal injury, which corporations currently enjoy. Rothbard himself acknowledges that "limited liability for torts is the illegitimate conferring of a special privilege".^[42]

There are limits to the right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard himself argues that the right to contract is based in inalienable human rights^[33] and therefore any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at will and which would, for instance, prevent a person from permanently selling himself or herself into unindentured slavery. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.^[43]

Included in the right of contract is the right to contract oneself out for employment by others. Unlike anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contract to be employees of others, whichever they prefer and the freedom to pay and receive wages. Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail over wage labor. For example, David D. Friedman has expressed preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed" and "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces".^[44] Others, such as Rothbard, do not express a preference either way but justify employment as a natural occurrence in a free market that is not immoral in any way.

Law and order and the use of violence

Different anarcho-capitalists propose different forms of anarcho-capitalism and one area of disagreement is in the area of law. In The Market for Liberty, Morris and Linda Tannehill object to any statutory law whatsoever. They argue that all one has to do is ask if one is aggressing against another (see tort and contract law) in order to decide if an act is right or wrong.^[45] However, while also supporting a natural prohibition on force and fraud, Rothbard supports the establishment of a mutually agreed-upon centralized libertarian legal code which private courts would pledge to follow.

Unlike both the Tannehills and Rothbard who see an ideological commonality of ethics and morality as a requirement, David D. Friedman proposes that "the systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars".^[46] Friedman says whether this would lead to a libertarian society "remains to be proven". He says it is a possibility that very unlibertarian laws may result, such as laws against drugs, but he thinks this would be rare. He reasons that "if the value of a law to its supporters is less than its cost to its victims, that law [...] will not survive in an anarcho-capitalist society".^[47]

Anarcho-capitalists only accept collective defense of individual liberty (i.e. courts, military or police forces) insofar as such groups are formed and paid for on an explicitly voluntary basis. However, their complaint is not just that the state's defensive services are funded by taxation, but that the state assumes it is the only legitimate practitioner of physical force—that is, it forcibly prevents the private sector from providing comprehensive security, such as a police, judicial and prison systems to protect individuals from aggressors. Anarcho-capitalists believe that there is nothing morally superior about the state which would grant it, but not private individuals, a right to use physical force to restrain aggressors. If competition in security provision were allowed to exist, prices would also be lower and services would be better according to anarcho-capitalists. According to Molinari: "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries".^[48] Proponents point out that private systems of justice and defense already exist, naturally forming where the market is allowed to compensate for the failure of the state: private arbitration, security guards, neighborhood watch groups and so on.^{[49][50][51][52]} These private courts and police are sometimes referred to generically as private defense agencies (PDAs).

The defense of those unable to pay for such protection might be financed by charitable organizations relying on voluntary donation rather than by state institutions relying on coercive taxation, or by cooperative self-help by groups of individuals.^[53]

Anarcho-capitalists believe that subrogation, which allows remuneration for losses and damages to be funded by the aggressors, reduces insurance costs and could operate as a business in itself—converting victims from paying customers into direct beneficiaries. The concept of restitution transfer and recoupment (RTR) has been explored by freenation theorist John Frederic Kosanke.^[54] RTR agencies would employ bonding agencies, private investigators, private dispute resolution organizations and private aggressor containment agencies as required. Instead of having to pay for restitution, victims sell restitution rights to the RTR agencies. This arrangement can be compared^{[weasel words]} to the contractual nature of the Goðorð system employed in the Icelandic Commonwealth by competing chieftains.^{[citation needed]}

Edward Stringham argues that private adjudication of disputes could enable the market to internalize externalities and provide services that customers desire.^[55][56]

Murray Rothbard admired the American Revolutionary War and believed it is the only United States war that can be justified

Like classical liberalism and unlike anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-capitalism permits the use of force as long as it is in the defense of persons or property. The permissible extent of this defensive use of force is an arguable point among anarcho-capitalists. Retributive justice, meaning retaliatory force, is often a component of the contracts imagined for an anarcho-capitalist society. Some believe prisons or indentured servitude would be justifiable institutions to deal with those who violate anarcho-capitalist property relations while others believe exile or forced restitution are sufficient.^[57]

Bruce L. Benson argues that legal codes may impose punitive damages for intentional torts in the interest of deterring crime. For instance, a thief who breaks into a house by picking a lock and is caught before taking anything would still owe the victim for violating the sanctity of his property rights. Benson opines that despite the lack of objectively measurable losses in such cases, "standardized rules that are generally perceived to be fair by members of the community would, in all likelihood, be established through precedent, allowing judgments to specify payments that are reasonably appropriate for most criminal offenses".^[58] The Tannehills raise a similar example, noting that a bank robber who had an attack of conscience and returned the money would still owe reparations for endangering the employees' and customers' lives and safety, in addition to the costs of the defense agency answering the teller's call for help. However, the robber's loss of reputation would be even more damaging. Specialized companies would list aggressors so that anyone wishing to do business with a man could first check his record. The bank robber would find insurance companies listing him as a very poor risk and other firms would be reluctant to enter into contracts with him.^[59]

One difficult application of defensive aggression is the act of revolutionary violence (including anarcho-capitalist revolution) against tyrannical regimes. Many anarcho-capitalists admire the American Revolution as "the legitimate act of individuals working together to fight against tyrannical restrictions of their liberties". In fact, according to Rothbard, the American Revolutionary War was the only war involving the United States that could be justified.^[60] Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Samuel Edward Konkin III, feel that violent revolution is counter-productive and prefer voluntary forms of economic secession to the extent possible.^{[citation needed]}

Branches

The two principal moral approaches to anarcho-capitalism differ in regard to whether anarcho-capitalist society is justified on deontological or consequentialist ethics, or both. Natural-law anarcho-capitalism (as advocated by Rothbard) holds that a universal system of rights can be derived from natural law. Some other anarcho-capitalists do not rely upon the idea of natural rights, but instead present economic justifications for a free-market capitalist society. Such a latter approach has been offered by David D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom.^[61] Unlike other anarcho-capitalists, most notably Rothbard, Friedman has never tried to deny the theoretical cogency of the neoclassical literature on "market failure", but openly applies the theory to both market and government institutions (see government failure) to compare the net result, nor has he been inclined to attack economic efficiency as a normative benchmark.^[52]

Kosanke sees such a debate as irrelevant since in the absence of statutory law the non-aggression principle (NAP) is naturally enforced because individuals are automatically held accountable for their actions via tort and contract law. Communities of sovereign individuals naturally expel aggressors in the same way that ethical business practices are naturally required among competing businesses that are subject to the discipline of the marketplace. For him, the only thing that needs to be debated is the nature of the contractual mechanism that abolishes the state, or prevents it from coming into existence where new communities form.^[3]

Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools

The black and gold flag, symbol of anarchism (black) and capitalism (gold), was first flown in 1963 in Colorado^[62] and is also used by the Swedish AnarkoKapitalistisk Front^[63]

In both its collectivist and individualist forms, anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing and anti-capitalist ideology that promotes socialist economic theories such as communism, syndicalism and mutualism.^[64][65] These anarchists believe capitalism is incompatible with social and economic equality and therefore do not recognize anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist school of thought.^{[66][67][68][69]} In particular, they argue that capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion, which is incompatible with an anarchist society.^[61]

Murray Rothbard argues that the capitalist system of today is indeed not properly anarchistic because it so often colludes with the state. According to Rothbard, "what Marx and later writers have done is to lump together two extremely different and even contradictory concepts and actions under the same portmanteau term. These two contradictory concepts are what I would call 'free-market capitalism' on the one hand, and 'state capitalism' on the other".^[70] "The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism", writes Rothbard, "is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation". He continues: "State capitalism inevitably creates all sorts of problems which become insoluble".^[70] Despite Rothbard's claims, Marxists do make a distinction between free-market capitalism and state capitalism.^[71] The term "state capitalism" was first used by marxist politician Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896^[72] and Friedrich Engels, who developed Marxist theory, talked about capitalism with state ownership as a different form of capitalism.^[73]

Rothbard maintains that anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism—the only form of anarchism that could possibly exist in reality as he argues that any other form presupposes an authoritarian enforcement of political ideology, such as "redistribution of private property".^[74] According to this argument, the free market is simply the natural situation that would result from people being free from authority and entails the establishment of all voluntary associations in society, such as cooperatives, non-profit organizations, businesses and so on.

Moreover, anarcho-capitalists as well as classical liberal minarchists argue that the application of left-wing anarchist ideals would require an authoritarian body of some sort to impose it. Based on their understanding of anarchism, in order to forcefully prevent people from accumulating private capital^{[clarification needed or use correct term]} there would necessarily be a redistributive organization of some sort which would have the authority to in essence exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group of people. They conclude that this body would inherently have political power and would be nothing short of a state. The difference between such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is, what anarcho-capitalists see as the voluntary nature of organization within anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a centralized ideology and a paired enforcement mechanism which they believe would be necessary under a "coercively" egalitarian-anarchist system.^[61] On the other hand, anarchists argue that a state is required to maintain private property and for capitalism to function.^[75]

However, Rothbard also wrote a piece, published posthumously, entitled "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?" in which he traced the etymological roots of Anarchist philosophy, ultimately coming to the conclusion that "we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. That none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines". Furthermore, he said: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist".^[76]

History

Classical liberalism

Main article: Classical liberalism

Classical liberalism is the primary influence with the longest history on anarcho-capitalist theory. Classical liberals have had two main themes since John Locke first expounded the philosophy: the liberty of man and limitations of state power. The liberty of man was expressed in terms of natural rights while limiting the state was based (for Locke) on a consent theory.^{[citation needed]}

In the 19th century, classical liberals led the attack against statism. One notable was Frédéric Bastiat (The Law), who wrote: "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else". Henry David Thoreau wrote: "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have".^{[77][failed verification]}

The early liberals believed that the state should confine its role to protecting individual liberty and property and opposed all but the most minimal economic regulations. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants.^[78] Some individualists came to realize that the liberal state itself takes property forcefully through taxation in order to fund its protection services and therefore it seemed logically inconsistent to oppose theft while also supporting a tax-funded protector. So they advocated what may be seen as^{[weasel words]} classical liberalism taken to the extreme by only supporting voluntarily funded defense by competing private providers. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of privatizing protection of individual liberty and property was France's Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. In the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same.

In his essay The Production of Security, Molinari argued: "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity". Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico argues that what these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism".^[79] Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people, i.e. society; and the institutions of force, i.e. the state. This society vs. state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs. artificial society, liberty vs. authority, society of contract vs. society of authority and industrial society vs. militant society, just to name a few.^[48] The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of Herbert Spencer as well as in thinkers such as Paul Émile de Puydt and Auberon Herbert.

In the early 20th century, the mantle of anti-state liberalism was taken by the Old Right.^{[citation needed]} These were minarchists, anti-war, anti-imperialists and (later) anti-New Dealers. Some of the most notable members of the Old Right were Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett and H. L. Mencken. In the 1950s, the new "fusion conservatism", also called "Cold War conservatism", took hold of the right-wing in the United States, stressing anti-communism. This induced the libertarian Old Right to split off from the right and seek alliances with the (now left-wing) antiwar movement, and to start specifically libertarian organizations such as the Libertarian Party.^{[citation needed]}

19th century individualist anarchism in the United States

American individualist anarchists like Lysander Spooner (1808–1887) influenced anarcho-capitalism

Rothbard was influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists^[80] (who were also influenced by classical liberalism). In the winter of 1949, influenced by several 19th century individualists anarchists, Rothbard decided to reject minimal state laissez-faire and embrace individualist anarchism.^[81] In 1965, he said: "Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy they left to political philosophy".^[82] He thought they had a faulty understanding of economics as the 19th century individualists had a labor theory of value as influenced by the classical economists and Rothbard was a student of Austrian economics which does not agree with the labor theory of value. He sought to meld 19th-century American individualists' advocacy of free markets and private defense with the principles of Austrian economics: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung".^[83] He held that the economic consequences of the political system they advocate would not result in an economy with people being paid in proportion to labor amounts, nor would profit and interest disappear as they expected. Tucker thought that unregulated banking and money issuance would cause increases in the money supply so that interest rates would drop to zero or near to it.

Rothbard disagreed with this as he explains in The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View. He says that first of all Tucker was wrong to think that that would cause the money supply to increase because he says that the money supply in a free market would be self-regulating. If it were not, then inflation would occur so it is not necessarily desirable to increase the money supply in the first place. Secondly, he says that Tucker is wrong to think that interest would disappear regardless because people in general do not wish to lend their money to others without compensation so there is no reason why this would change just because banking was unregulated. Tucker held a labor theory of value and as a result he thought that in a free market people would be paid in proportion to how much labor they exerted and that if they were not then exploitation or "usury" was taking place. As he explains in State Socialism and Anarchism, his theory was that unregulated banking would cause more money to be available and that this would allow proliferation of new businesses, which would in turn raise demand for labor. This led him to believe that the labor theory of value would be vindicated and equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay. As an Austrian economist, Rothbard did not agree with the labor theory and believed that prices of goods and services are proportional to marginal utility rather than to labor amounts in the free market. He did not think that there was anything exploitative about people receiving an income according to how much buyers of their services value their labor or what that labor produces.

Of particular importance to anarcho-capitalists and Tucker and Spooner are the ideas of "sovereignty of the individual", a market economy and the opposition to collectivism. A defining point upon which they agree is that defense of liberty and property should be provided in the free market rather than by the state. Tucker said: "[D]efense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices".^[84]

Historical precedents

Several libertarians have discussed historical precedents of what they believe were examples of anarcho-capitalism.

Free cities of medieval Europe

Economist and libertarian scholar Bryan Caplan cites the free cities of medieval Europe as important examples of anarchist or nearly anarchistic societies:^[85]

One case that has inspired both sorts of anarchists is that of the free cities of medieval Europe. The first weak link in the chain of feudalism, these free cities became Europe's centers of economic development, trade, art, and culture. They provided a haven for runaway serfs, who could often legally gain their freedom if they avoided re-capture for a year and a day. And they offer many examples of how people can form mutual-aid associations for protection, insurance, and community. Of course, left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists take a somewhat different perspective on the free cities: the former emphasize the communitarian and egalitarian concerns of the free cities, while the latter point to the relatively unregulated nature of their markets and the wide range of services (often including defense, security, and legal services) which were provided privately or semi-privately.

Medieval Iceland

19th century interpretation of the Althing in the Icelandic Commonwealth, which authors such as David D. Friedman and Roderick Long believe to have some features of anarcho-capitalist society

According to the libertarian theorist David D. Friedman: "Medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions".^[86] While not directly labeling it anarcho-capitalist, he argues that the legal system of the Icelandic Commonwealth comes close to being a real-world anarcho-capitalist legal system^[87] because while there was a single legal system, enforcement of law was entirely private and highly capitalist; and so it provides some evidence of how such a society would function. "Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially 'public' offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system".^[86] Commenting on its political structure, libertarian scholar Roderick Long remarks:^[88]

The legal system's administration, insofar as it had one, lay in the hands of a parliament of about 40 officers whom historians call, however inadequately, "chieftains". This parliament had no budget and no employees; it met only two weeks per year. In addition to their parliamentary role, chieftains were empowered in their own local districts to appoint judges and to keep the peace; this latter job was handled on an essentially fee-for-service basis. The enforcement of judicial decisions was largely a matter of self-help (hence Iceland's reputation as a land of constant private feuding), but those who lacked the might to enforce their rights could sell their court-decreed claims for compensation to someone more powerful, usually a chieftain; hence even the poor and friendless could not be victimized with impunity. The basis of a chieftain's power within the political order was the power he already possessed outside it, in civil society. The office of chieftaincy was private property, and could be bought or sold; hence chieftaincies tended to track private wealth. But wealth alone was not enough. As economic historian Birgir Solvason notes in his masterful study of the period, "just buying the chieftainship was no guarantee of power"; the mere office by itself was "almost worthless" unless the chieftain could "convince some free-farmers to follow him". Chieftains did not hold authority over territorially-defined districts, but competed for clients with other chieftains from the same geographical area.

Long observes how the system of free contract between farmers and chieftains was threatened when harassment from Norwegian kings that began around AD 1000 forced the people of Iceland to accept Christianity as the national religion, which paved the way for the introduction of a compulsory tax in AD 1096 which was to be paid to the local chieftain who owned a churchstead. This, he believes, gave an unfair advantage to some chieftains who at least in part did not need to rely upon the voluntary support of their clients in order to receive some income. This gradually lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few big chieftains, enabling them to restrict competition and eventually establish effective monopolies. Although the Commonwealth was politically stable for over three centuries,^{[citation needed]} longer than any democracy has lasted,^{[citation needed]} its eventual downfall was brought about according to Long "not through having too much privatization, but through having too little".^[88] He notes:

[T]he Free State failed, not through having too much privatization, but through having too little. The tithe, and particularly the portion allotted to churchstead maintenance, represented a monopolistic, non-competitive element in the system. The introduction of the tithe was in turn made possible by yet another non-competitive element: the establishment of an official state church which everyone was legally bound to support. Finally, buying up chieftaincies would have availed little if there had been free entry into the chieftaincy profession; instead, the number of chieftains was set by law, and the creation of new chieftaincies could be approved only by parliament – i.e., by the existing chieftains, who were naturally less than eager to encourage competitors. It is precisely those respects in which the Free State was least privatized and decentralized that led to its downfall – while its more privatized aspects delayed that downfall for three centuries.

American Old West

According to the research of Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill, the Old West in the United States in the period of 1830 to 1900 was similar to anarcho-capitalism in that "private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved" and that the common popular perception that the Old West was chaotic with little respect for property rights is incorrect.^[89] Since squatters had no claim to western lands under federal law, extra-legal organizations formed to fill the void. Benson explains:^[90]

The land clubs and claim associations each adopted their own written contract setting out the laws that provided the means for defining and protecting property rights in the land. They established procedures for registration of land claims, as well as for protection of those claims against outsiders, and for adjudication of internal disputes that arose. The reciprocal arrangements for protection would be maintained only if a member complied with the association's rules and its court's rulings. Anyone who refused would be ostracized. Boycott by a land club meant that an individual had no protection against aggression other than what he could provide himself.

According to Anderson, "[d]efining anarcho-capitalist to mean minimal government with property rights developed from the bottom up, the western frontier was anarcho-capitalistic. People on the frontier invented institutions that fit the resource constraints they faced".^[91]

Gaelic Ireland

In his work For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard has claimed ancient Gaelic Ireland as an example of nearly anarcho-capitalist society.^[92] In his depiction, citing the work of Professor Joseph Peden,^[93] the basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath, which is portrayed as "a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes" with its territorial claim being limited to "the sum total of the landed properties of its members". Civil disputes were settled by private arbiters called "brehons" and the compensation to be paid to the wronged party was insured through voluntary surety relationships. Commenting on the "kings" of tuaths, Rothbard states:

The king was elected by the tuath from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.^[92]

Law merchant, admiralty law and early common law

Some libertarian historians^{[94][95][failed verification][96]} have cited law merchant, admiralty law and early common law as examples of anarcho-capitalism. In his work Power and Market, Rothbard states:

The law merchant, admiralty law, and much of the common law began to be developed by privately competitive judges, who were sought out by litigants for their expertise in understanding the legal areas involved. The fairs of Champagne and the great marts of international trade in the Middle Ages enjoyed freely competitive courts, and people could patronize those that they deemed most accurate and efficient.

Somalia from 1991 to 2006

Main article: History of Somalia (1991–2006)

Economist Alex Tabarrok claimed that Somalia in its stateless period provided a "unique test of the theory of anarchy", in some aspects near of that espoused by anarcho-capitalists David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard.^[97] Nonetheless, many anarcho-capitalists argue that Somalia was not an anarchist society.^[98][99]

Criticism

The state, justice and defense

Many anarchists like Brian Morris argue that anarcho-capitalism does not in fact get rid of the state. He says that anarcho-capitalists "simply replaced the state with private security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally understood".^[100] As anarchist Peter Sabatini notes:

Within [right] Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors ... Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now.

— Peter Sabatini, "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"^[101]

Likewise Bob Black argues that an anarcho-capitalist wants to "abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else". He states that they do not denounce what the state does, they just "object to who's doing it".^[102]

Some critics argue that anarcho-capitalism turns justice into a commodity; private defense and court firms would favour those who pay more for their services.^[103] Randall G. Holcombe argues that defense agencies could form cartels and oppress people without fear of competition.^[103] Philosopher Albert Meltzer argued that since anarcho-capitalism promotes the idea of private armies, it actually supports a "limited State". He contends that it "is only possible to conceive of Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for repression of countering it".^[104]

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that an anarcho-capitalist society would inevitably transform into a minarchist state through the eventual emergence of a monopolistic private defense and judicial agency that no longer faces competition. He argues that anarcho-capitalism results in an unstable system that would not endure in the real world. Paul Birch argues that legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal systems will be too complex and costly, therefore the largest private protection business in a territory will develop into a natural monopoly.^[105] Robert Ellickson states that anarcho-capitalists "by imagining a stable system of competing private associations, ignore both the inevitability of territorial monopolists in governance, and the importance of institutions to constrain those monopolists' abuses".^[106]

Anarcho-capitalists counter that this argument is circular because they believe monopolies are artificial constructs that can only be maintained by political immunity to natural market processes, or by perpetual provision of superior quality products and services. Unless competitors are prevented from entering a market, they believe that the profit incentive, which is fueled by "constant demand for improvement", proportionately draws them into it.^[3] Furthermore, they believe that the medieval systems in Ireland and Iceland demonstrate that treating the right to justice as a property means that it is sold (not purchased) by victims.^{[non sequitur]} Some libertarians propose a restitution system of justice in which the right to restitution created by the violation of the victims' property could be homesteaded by bounty hunters that would bring criminals to justice, thus creating the incentive for people to work defending the rights of victims that otherwise would not be able to pay for the service.^{[107][full citation needed]}

Rights and freedom

Many anarcho-capitalists believe that negative rights should be recognized as legitimate, but positive rights should be rejected.^[105] Some critics, including Noam Chomsky, reject the distinction between positive and negative rights:^[105]

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

— Noam Chomsky, "On Anarchism"^[108]

Peter Marshall also states that the anarcho-capitalist definition of freedom is entirely negative and that it cannot guarantee the positive freedom of individual autonomy and independence.^[66]

Economics and property

Most anarchists argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion, which violates anarchist principles.^[109] David Graeber noted his skepticism about anarcho-capitalism along the same lines:

To be honest I'm pretty skeptical about the idea of anarcho-capitalism. If a-caps imagine a world divided into property-holding employers and property-less wage laborers, but with no systematic coercive mechanisms [...] well, I just can't see how it would work. You always see a-caps saying "if I want to hire someone to pick my tomatoes, how are you going to stop me without using coercion?" Notice how you never see anyone say "if I want to hire myself out to pick someone else's tomatoes, how are you going to stop me?" Historically nobody ever did wage labor like that if they had pretty much ANY other option.^{[110][unreliable source?]}

Some critics argue that the anarcho-capitalist concept of voluntary choice ignores constraints due to both human and non-human factors, such as the need for food and shelter, and active restriction of both used and unused resources by those enforcing property claims.^[111] For instance, if a person requires employment in order to feed and house himself, the employer–employee relationship could be considered involuntary. Another criticism is that employment is involuntary because the economic system that makes it necessary for some individuals to serve others is supported by the enforcement of coercive private property relations.

Some philosophies view any ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate.^[112]

Some libertarian critics of anarcho-capitalism who support the full privatization of capital, such as geolibertarians, argue that land and the raw materials of nature remain a distinct factor of production and cannot be justly converted to private property because they are not products of human labor. Some socialists, including other market anarchists such as mutualists, adamantly oppose absentee ownership. Anarcho-capitalists have strong abandonment criteria – one maintains ownership (more or less) until one agrees to trade or gift it. Anti-state critics of this view tend to have comparatively weak abandonment criteria; for example, one loses ownership (more or less) when one stops personally occupying and using it. Furthermore, the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation is anathema to socialism and traditional schools of anarchism as well as to any moral or economic philosophy that takes equal natural rights to land and the Earth's resources as a premise.^[105]

Anarcho-capitalists counter that property^[which?] is not only natural, but unavoidable, citing the Soviet Union as an inevitable result of its prohibition^{[clarification needed]} and collectivization, which they claim eliminates the incentives and accountability of ownership and blackens markets. Kosanke further challenges what he perceives as "egalitarian dogma" by attempting to demonstrate that all costs of living are naturally determined, subject to a variety of factors and cannot be politically manipulated without net negative consequences.^{[non sequitur][3]}

Literature

Nonfiction

The following is a partial list of notable nonfiction works discussing anarcho-capitalism.

• Murray Rothbard, founder of anarcho-capitalism:
  • Man, Economy, and State, Austrian micro– and macroeconomics
  • Power and Market, classification of State economic interventions
  • The Ethics of Liberty, moral justification of a free society
  • For a New Liberty, an outline of how an anarcho-capitalist society could work
• David D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, classic consequentialist defense of anarchism
• Michael Huemer, The Problem of Political Authority, a lengthy defense of philosophical and political anarchism (with the latter version being of the anarcho-capitalistic variety) drawing on a mix of natural rights and consequentialist arguments
• Linda and Morris Tannehill, The Market for Liberty, classic on private defense agencies
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography
  • The Economics and Ethics of Private Property
  • A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
  • Democracy: The God That Failed
• Bruce L. Benson, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State
  • To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice
• James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg, The Sovereign Individual, historians look at technology and its implications
• Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State
• Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, Franz Oppenheimer's thesis applied to early United States history
• Herbert Spencer, Social Statics, includes the essay "The Right to Ignore the State" ad though Spencer was not an anarcho-capitalist, many of his ideas, including the law of equal freedom, were precursors to modern anarcho-capitalism
• George H. Smith, "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market", examines the epistemic and entrepreneurial role of justice agencies
• Edward P. Stringham, Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, 700 page book presenting the major arguments historical studies about anarcho capitalism

Fiction

Anarcho-capitalism has been examined in certain works of literature, particularly science fiction. An early example^{[according to whom?]} is Robert A. Heinlein's 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress in which he explores what he terms "rational anarchism".

Cyberpunk and postcyberpunk authors have been particularly fascinated by the idea of the breakdown of the nation-state.^{[citation needed]} Several stories of Vernor Vinge, including Marooned in Realtime and Conquest by Default, feature anarcho-capitalist societies, sometimes portrayed in a favorable light and sometimes not.^{[113][failed verification]} Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, Max Barry's Jennifer Government and L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach all explore anarcho-capitalist ideas.^{[citation needed]} The cyberpunk portrayal of anarchy varies from the downright grim to the cheerfully optimistic and it need not imply anything specific about the writer's political views. In particular, Neal Stephenson refrains from sweeping political statements when deliberately provoked.^[114][115]

In Matt Stone's (Richard D. Fuerle) novelette On the Steppes of Central Asia,^[116] an American grad student is invited to work for a newspaper in Mongolia and discovers that the Mongolian society is indeed stateless in a semi-anarcho-capitalist way.^{[citation needed]} The novelette was originally written to advertise Fuerle's 1986 economics treatise The Pure Logic of Choice.

Sharper Security: A Sovereign Security Company Novel, part of a series by Thomas Sewell, is "set a couple of decades into the near-future with a liberty view of society based on individual choice and free market economics"^[117] and features a society where individuals hire a security company to protect and insure them from crime. The security companies are sovereign, but customers are free to switch between them. They behave as a combination of insurance/underwriting and para-military police forces. Anarcho-capitalist themes abound, including an exploration of not honoring sovereign immunity, privately owned road systems, a laissez-faire market and competing currencies.

Sandy Sandfort's, Scott Bieser's and Lee Oaks's Webcomic Escape from Terra examines a market anarchy based on Ceres and its interaction with the aggressive statist society Terra.^[118]

See also

• Agorism
• Anarchism and capitalism
• Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism
• Counter-economics
• Creative disruption
• Crypto-anarchism
• Individualist anarchism
• Issues in anarchism
• The Libertarian Forum
• Neocameralism
• Privatization in criminal justice
• Propertarianism
• Right-wing anarchism
• Stateless society
• Voluntaryism

References

1. ^ Morris, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 13–14. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n8. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
2. ^ Edward Stringham. Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice. p. 51.
3. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g} "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy". Libertarian Papers VOL. 3, ART. NO. 3 (2011).
4. ^ Yilmaz, Yesim (April 20, 1998). Policy Analysis No. 303. "Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory Reform". The CATO Institute. p. 10
5. ^ "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker." Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 978-0-631-17944-3, p. 290.
6. ^ Rothbard, Murray. For A New Liberty. "12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts".
7. ^ "B.3 Why are anarchists against private property? - Anarchist Writers". anarchism.pageabode.com. Archived from the original on 14 November 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018.
8. ^ "End Private Property, Not Kenny Loggins". jacobinmag.com. Archived from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018.
9. ^ Hess, Karl. The Death of Politics. Interview in Playboy Magazine, March 1969
10. ^ Jump up to:^a b Holcombe, Randall G., Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 19, No. 2 (Spring 2005):3–29.
11. ^ Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
12. ^ Rothbard, Murray N., A Future of Peace and Capitalism; Murray N. Rothbard, Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty
13. ^ Roberta Modugno Crocetta, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism in the contemporary debate. A critical defense, Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
14. ^ Michael Oliver, "Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard", originally published in The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal, 25 February 1972. For an earlier published use of "anarcho-capitalism" by Rothbard, see his "Know Your Rights" WIN: Peace and Freedom through Nonviolent Action, Volume 7, No. 4, 1 March 1971, 6–10.
15. ^ Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press 2001. p. 33
16. ^ Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1840). What is Property?
17. ^ Murray Rothbard. "Concepts of the role of intellectuals in social change toward laissez faire" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 December 2008. Retrieved 28 December 2008.
18. ^ Weick, David. Anarchist Justice. pp. 223–24
19. ^ Sabatini, Peter. Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy.
20. ^ Kropotkin, Peter. Anarchism.
21. ^ "Q8. What is the Nolan Chart?". nolanchart.com. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
22. ^ Murray Rothbard. Power and Market: Defense services on the Free Market. p. 1051. It is all the more curious, incidentally, that while laissez-faireists should by the logic of their position, be ardent believers in a single, unified world government, so that no one will live in a state of "anarchy" in relation to anyone else, they almost never are.
23. ^ Linda and Morris Tannehill. The Market for Liberty, p. 81.
24. ^ Friedman, David D. The Machinery of Freedom. Chapter 42
25. ^ Leeson, Peter. "Anarchy Unbound; Or, Why Self-Governance Works Better Than You Think." Cato Institute, 6 August 2007. Cato-Unbound.org
26. ^ Hans-Hermann Hoppe "Argumentation Ethics". Retrieved 6 February 2007.
27. ^ libertarianism. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 30 July 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online
28. ^ Jump up to:^a b Murray Rothbard (2000). "Egalitarianism as A Revolt Against Nature And Other Essays: and other essays"". Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000. p. 207.
29. ^ "Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282 "Although there are many honorable exceptions who still embrace the "socialist" label, most people who call themselves individualist anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political Economy, Preface. Archived 15 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine
30. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2001) "Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography" Retrieved 23 May 2005
31. ^ Friedman, David D. (1982) "Chapter 41: Problems" The Machinery of Freedom. Retrieved 27 April 2015
32. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1982) "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" Cato Journal 2, No. 1 (Spring 1982): pp. 55–99. Retrieved 20 May 2005
33. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Rothbard, Murray N. (1982) The Ethics of Liberty Humanities Press ISBN 978-0-8147-7506-6 p. 162 Retrieved 20 May 2005
34. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1973) For a new Liberty Collier Books, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York: pp. 24–25. Retrieved 20 May 2005
35. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) Society Without A State (pdf) Libertarian Forum newsletter (January 1975)
36. ^ Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal (25 February 1972)
37. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2002) "Rothbardian Ethics" Retrieved 23 May 2005
38. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Rothbard, Murray N. (1962) Ludwig von Mises Institute Man, Economy & State with Power and Market Ludwig von Mises Institute ISBN 978-0-945466-30-7 ch. 2 Retrieved 19 May 2005.
39. ^ Hess, Karl (1969) Letter From Washington The Libertatian Forum Vol. I, No. VI (15 June 1969) Retrieved 5 August 2006
40. ^ Long, Roderick T. 199. "A Plea for Public Property". Formulations 5, no. 3 (Spring)
41. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. LewRockwell.com. Retrieved 10 September 2006.
42. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1962) Man, Economy & State with Power and Market, Mises.org
43. ^ Nozick, Robert (1973) Anarchy, State, and Utopia
44. ^ Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Harper & Row. pp. 144–145
45. ^ Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 113.
46. ^ Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom. Second edition. La Salle, Ill, Open Court, pp. 116–17.
47. ^ Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Harper & Row. pp. 127–28
48. ^ Jump up to:^a b Molinari, Gustave de (1849) The Production of Security (trans. J. Huston McCulloch)'.' Retrieved 15 July 2006. Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
49. ^ Stringham, Edward; Curott, Nicholas (2010). "The Rise of Government Law Enforcement in England". THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE: LAW AND ECONOMICS OF LEGAL INSTITUTIONS, Edward Lopez, Ed., Independent Institute 2010. SSRN 1711665.
50. ^ Stringham, Edward (Winter 1998–1999). "Market Chosen Law". Journal of Libertarian Studies. 14 (1): 53–77. SSRN 1676257.
51. ^ Stringham, Edward; Zywicki, Todd (5 November 2005). "Rivalry and Superior Dispatch: An Analysis of Competing Courts in Medieval and Early Modern England". George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper. 10 (57). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1703598. SSRN 1703598.
52. ^ Jump up to:^a b Friedman, David D. (1973) The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical CapitalismHarper & Row ISBN 978-0-06-091010-5 ch29 Archived 31 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine
53. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1973) For a new Liberty Collier Books, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York: p. 223. Retrieved 5 August 2006.
54. ^ "Restitution_Transfer_and_Recoupment".
55. ^ Stringham, Edward (2015). Private Governance. Oxford University Press.
56. ^ Caplan, Bryan; Stringham, Edward (2008). "Privatizing the Adjudication of Disputes". Theoretical Inquiries in Law. 9 (2): 503–28. SSRN 1674441.
57. ^ O'Keeffe, Matthew (1989) "Retribution versus Restitution" Legal Notes No. 5, Libertarian Alliance ISBN 978-1-870614-22-1 Retrieved 19 May 2005
58. ^ Benson, Bruce (1998). To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice. NYU Press. pp. 235–38. ISBN 978-0-8147-1327-3.
59. ^ Tannehill, Linda and Morris (1993). The Market for Liberty (PDF). San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. pp. 105–06. ISBN 978-0-930073-08-4. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
60. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1973) Interview Reason February 1973. Retrieved 10 August 2005.
61. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Tame, Chris R. October 1983. The Chicago School: Lessons from the Thirties for the Eighties. Economic Affairs. p. 56
62. ^ Rothbard, Murray N., The Betrayal of the American Right (2007): 188
63. ^ "Flags of political parties (Sweden)". FOTW Flags Of The World website. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
64. ^ Brooks, Frank H. (1994). The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881–1908). Transaction Publishers. p. xi. ISBN 1-56000-132-1. Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today
65. ^ Joseph Kahn (2000). "Anarchism, the Creed That Won't Stay Dead; The Spread of World Capitalism Resurrects a Long-Dormant Movement". The New York Times (5 August).Colin Moynihan (2007). "Book Fair Unites Anarchists. In Spirit, Anyway". New York Times (16 April).
66. ^ Jump up to:^a b Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."
67. ^ Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)." ISBN 0748634959
68. ^ McKay, Iain (2008). "Section F – Is 'anarcho'-capitalism a type of anarchism?" An Anarchist FAQ: Volume 1. Oakland/Edinburgh: AK Press. ISBN 978-1902593906
69. ^ Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."
70. ^ Jump up to:^a b Rothbard, Murray N (1973). "A Future of Peace and Capitalism". James H. Weaver, ed., Modern Political Economy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. pp. 419–30.
71. ^ Dossani, Sameer (10 February 2009). "Foreign Policy In Focus | Chomsky: Understanding the Crisis — Markets, the State and Hypocrisy". Archived from the original on 12 October 2009.
72. ^ Liebknecht, Wilhelm (1896). "Our Recent Congress". Justice. Retrieved 31 May 2007.
73. ^ Frederick Engels. "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Chpt. 3)". marxists.org. Retrieved 8 January 2014.
74. ^ Rothbard, Murray N (25 February 1972). Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard. The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal.
75. ^ Rocker, Rudolf (1938). Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. An Introduction to a Subject Which the Spanish War Has Brought into Overwhelming Prominence. Secker and Warburg. p. 11. (...) as long as within society a possessing and non-possessing group of human beings face one another in enmity, the state will be indispensable to the possessing minority for the protection for its privileges.
76. ^ "Mises Daily". Mises Institute. 4 December 2007.
77. ^ Thoreau, Henry David (1849) Civil Disobedience
78. ^ Razeen, Sally. Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual History, Routledge (UK) ISBN 978-0-415-16493-1, 1998, p. 17
79. ^ Raico, Ralph (2004) Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee Archived 10 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Unité associée au CNRS
80. ^ "[...] only a few individuals like Murray Rothbard, in Power and Market, and some article writers were influenced by these men. Most had not evolved consciously from this tradition; they had been a rather automatic product of the American environment." DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. 127
81. ^ Gordon, David. The Essential Rothbard. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. pp. 12–13.
82. ^ "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View." A Way Out. May–June 1965. Later republished in Egalitarianism As A Revolt Against Nature by Rothbard, 1974. Later published in Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2000. The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View
83. ^ "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 7 (1965, 2000)
84. ^ Tucker, Benjamin. "Instead of a Book" (1893)
85. ^ "Anarchist Theory FAQ Version 5.2". econfaculty.gmu.edu.
86. ^ Jump up to:^a b Friedman, David D. (1979). "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case". Retrieved 12 August 2005.
87. ^ Friedman, David D (28 February 2015). "Private Law Enforcement, Medieval Iceland, and Libertarianism". The Machinery of Freedom (3rd ed.). pp. 203–204. ISBN 978-1507785607.
88. ^ Jump up to:^a b "The Vikings Were Libertarians". LewRockwell.com.
89. ^ Anderson, Terry L. and Hill, P. J. "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West", The Journal of Libertarian Studies
90. ^ Benson, Bruce L. (1998). "Private Justice in America". To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice. New York: New York University Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-8147-1327-3.
91. ^ Probasco, Christian (18 June 2008). "Grilling Terry L. Anderson, Free-Market Environmentalist". New West.
92. ^ Jump up to:^a b M. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto
93. ^ Peden Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland
94. ^ Rothbard. "Defense Services on the Free Market"
95. ^ Benson. "The Enterprise of Customary Law"
96. ^ Hasnas. "The Obviousness of Anarchy"
97. ^ Tabarrok, Alex (21 April 2004). "Somalia and the theory of anarchy". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved 13 January 2008.
98. ^ Knight, Alex R., III (7 October 2009). "The Truth About Somalia And Anarchy". Center for a Stateless Society. Retrieved 24 December 2016.
99. ^ Block, Walter (Fall 1999). "Review Essay" (PDF). The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. 2 (3). Retrieved 28 January 2010. But if we define anarchy as places without governments, and we define governments as the agencies with a legal right to impose violence on their subjects, then whatever else occurred in Haiti, Sudan, and Somalia, it wasn't anarchy. For there were well-organized gangs (e.g., governments) in each of these places, demanding tribute, and fighting others who made similar impositions. Absence of government means absence of government, whether well established ones, or fly-by-nights.
100. ^ Brian Morris, “Global Anti-Capitalism”, pp. 170–176, Anarchist Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 175
101. ^ Peter Sabatini. "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy".
102. ^ Bob Black (1992), "The Libertarian As Conservative", The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, p. 144
103. ^ Jump up to:^a b Holcombe, Randall G. "Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable" (PDF).
104. ^ Meltzer, Albert (2000). Anarchism: Arguments For and Against. AK Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1873176573.
105. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Birch, Paul (1998). "Anarcho-capitalism Dissolves Into City States" (PDF). Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes. no. 28: 4. ISSN 0267-7083. Retrieved 5 July 2010.
106. ^ Ellickson, Robert C. (26 January 2017). "A Hayekian Case Against Anarcho-Capitalism: Of Street Grids, Lighthouses, and Aid to the Destitute". Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 569. SSRN 2906383.
107. ^ [1]
108. ^ "On Anarchism: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Tom Lane". chomsky.info. 23 December 2006. Retrieved 9 January 2016.
109. ^ Iain McKay; et al. (21 January 2010). "Section F – Are 'anarcho'-capitalists really anarchists?". An Anarchist FAQ. Infoshop.org. Retrieved 21 August 2013.
110. ^ "I am David Graeber, an anthropologist, activist, anarchist and author of Debt. AMA". Reddit. Retrieved 21 August 2013.
111. ^ Friedman, David. "Market Failure: The Case for and Against Government". Do We Need a Government?. www.daviddfriedman.com. Retrieved 14 July 2010.
112. ^ McElroy, Wendy (1995). "Intellectual Property: The Late Nineteenth Century Libertarian Debate". Libertarian Heritage No. 14 ISBN 1-85637-281-2. Retrieved 24 June 2005
113. ^ Henry, Jim. "Reviews by Jim Henry: Vernor Vinge". Retrieved 17 March 2011.
114. ^ Godwin, Mike; Neal Stephenson (February 2005). "Neal Stephenson's Past, Present, and Future; The author of the widely praised Baroque Cycle on science, markets, and post-9/11 America". Reason. Archived from the original (print article) on 10 August 2007. Retrieved 11 August 2007.
115. ^ Roblimo; Neal Stephenson (20 October 2004). "Neal Stephenson Responds With Wit and Humor" (email exchange). Slashdot. Retrieved 11 August 2007.
116. ^ "On the Steppes of Central Asia". Retrieved 10 February 2008.
117. ^ "Sharper Security Series". Catallaxy Media. Archived from the original on 18 January 2013. Retrieved 23 November 2012.
118. ^ "Big Head Press – Thoughtful Stories, Graphic Novels Online And In Print – Escape From Terra – by Sandy Sandfort, Scott Bieser, Leila Del Duca and Lee Oaks!". Escape From Terra. Archived from the original on 15 May 2011. Retrieved 22 April 2011.

Notes

1. ^ The wider anarchist movement rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, see Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools

Further reading

See also: Anarcho-capitalist literature

• Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The * Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99.
• Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country? Ed., Roderick T. Long & Tibor R. Machan. Ashgate.
• Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Edward Stringham. Transaction Publishers, 2007.
• Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p. 231.
• DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp. 117 and 123.

External links

Anarcho-capitalismat Wikipedia's sister projects

• Definitions from Wiktionary
• Media from Wikimedia Commons
• Quotations from Wikiquote
• Textbooks from Wikibooks

• Anarcho-capitalism at Curlie
• Ludwig von Mises Institute – a research and educational center of classical liberalism; including anarcho-capitalism, libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of economics
• Freedomain Radio – hosted by Stefan Molyneux, discusses anarcho-capitalism topics
• Anarcho-capitalist FAQ
• Anti-state.com – the "online center for market anarchism", it has an active forum and archive of theoretical and practical articles from notable anarcho-capitalists
• The Libertarian Standard – a website of Austrian and Rothbardian-influenced libertarians
• LewRockwell.com – run by Lew Rockwell
• Property and Freedom Society – an International anarcho-capitalist society
• Strike The Root – an anarcho-capitalist website featuring essays, news and a forum