I’ve recently been viewing a few videos posted by the Mises Institute (one of my favorite speakers is Thomas Woods), in which I’ve seen Doug Casey speaking at FreedomFest. Woods and Casey defended anarchism, claiming that the state had no feasible role to fulfill in a free society.
Before I became massively interested in the Mises Institute, I was a follower of many of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist ideals (I am not a “Randist”, but I concur with the majority of her philosophy, especially the moral grounds for capitalism). As a laissez-faire capitalist, I’ve been of the opinion that the state’s singular role should be the defense of individual rights… of course, the state would be coercive in that law enforcement exists, but voluntarily supported (as opposed to taxation).
I am not necessarily hostile to the anarchist ideals promoted by Mr. Woods and Mr. Casey, but, in my research of the issue, many capitalist sources (such as the ARC) claim anarcho-capitalist to be inherently anti-capitalist (claiming that gang-rule is collectivist). The cited example that anarchy led to gang-rule (much like democracy) was Bosnia (with some references to Somalia).
So, two questions:
Does the Mises Institute necessarily promote anarchism, or is the school of thought more heterodox?
How does anarchy not lead to mob rule (such as Bosnia)?
Once again, these are simply honest questions of the philosophy: I am very much convinced by the majority of Austrian School economic ideals, but I am confused in regards to this issue.
Our speakers don’t focus on it. Better to push ending the fed, opposing the stimulus, and state nullification than advocate full out anarchy. Anarchy isn’t obvious, else people wouldn’t make these kinds of posts.
Anarchy is a necessary but insufficient condition for civil society. Thats why we are anarcho-capitalists, rather than ancoms or primtivists. Its not they we like anarchy so much as that we abide by the Non-Aggression Principle.
So anarcho-capitalists here concede that anarchy will result in social chaos, but that it’s morally necessary? The latter premise I understood, but the former conclusion was in question. I may be misunderstanding you in that regard…
It is deviation from the non-aggression principle that results in social chaos. What do you call an institution the sustains itself off forced extractions of money and regulates human interaction at the point of gun? That’s the state, and that’s social chaos.
Being as the state’s moral justification is the result of the populace’s will to support it, then, under those circumstances, the state would have no right to exist.
I realize that, philosophically, mob-rule violates a non-coercive existence, but, in reality, is that the result of anarchism in practice?
Okay. Thanks.
see: 2
I haven’t followed the Austrian School for very long; for quite some time, I’ve been a fan of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and it’s only recently that I’ve looked into Austrian School economics.
If law is market based, doesn’t that necessarily result in a de facto government? I.E. oligarchy? If rights are dependant upon property (i.e. law is determined by force), and said rights are not constitutionally or coercively protected, doesn’t that result in oligarchy or democratic mob rule?
Oh, we have reasons for believing a society based on the NAP is possible and desirable. We focus a lot on utilitarian arguments (probably because the deontological arguments are so easy).
The state, under Objectivist policy, is the result of voluntary support; it does not coercively sustain itself, only coercively enforce law (the defense of individual rights). In other words, nothing is forced under such a system (which is why I question anarcho-capitalism to some extent; one system accepts voluntary government, while the other accepts voluntarily supported government).
In regards to regulating human interaction… isn’t law enforcement necessary to halt crime (which will inevitably occur under any system)?
Under the scenario that private security is responsible for that, I would question as to whether or not such private security corporations become, in their own right, governments competing in the free market system (i.e. perpetual state of chaotic aggression). In the case that they are not, what, then, separates them from gangs requiring protection-money?
I realize that, philosophically, such results violate the principles of non-aggressive anarcho-capitalism, but, in a practical matter, is there an explanation as to why this wouldn’t occur?
Government is the institution that holds a monopoly on the application of force (of course, under Objectivist theory, that moral right to applying force is dependant on minarchist self-regulation. In other words, the state is limited to using coercion only in response to coercion).
I’m not criticizing the deontological argument for anarchy (it’s moral basis- the lack of coercion- is sound). In a utilitarian sense, however, I am concerned as to the results of anarcho-capitalism in practice.
How can the state be a monopoly if it cannot attack competitors?
the state has a monopoly on the application of force, and may only apply the force in retaliation to force. In other words, utilize law enforcement in retaliation to coercive crimes (murder, theft, etc.). Rather than allow private security contractors to compete to apply that force: in other words, rights are universally protected by the state, regardless of an individual’s market value.
So if a private company were protecting my property, your state would shut it down?
Sounds like communism
But don’t let the “market” term throw you. Anarcho capitalists support both market and social means of providing goods. There is a “free market” in sex, and yet the majority of “transactions” are non-monetary. The state is an attempt at using social means (democracy, etc)… so if you think states can work for some reason, the same forces will also work outside the state apparatus.
What would prevent security corporations (or anything, really) from using force to coerce each other (apart from the moral basis for anarcho-capitalism)?
What would prevent security corporations (or anything, really) from using force to coerce each other (apart from the moral basis for anarcho-capitalism)?
You are basically asking, what would prevent a security corporation from becoming a state, right? That’s were the whole point of anarchism is. We, anarchists and radical libertarians, are aware, that monopolies on force, law, education, defense (etc.) are bad, that’s why we do not support the state and do not wish to have such forced coercive monopoly in free society.
Who will prevent it? No absolute answer. People, who don’t want such monopoly won’t support it and will defend themselves. If there is no state, there is no barrier of entry to competitors. That’s one thing. The other thing is harder to achieve - a mindset. Unless people stop believing in legitimacy of the initiation of force (the state), anarchy won’t happen (I mean in global scale).
Look at this this way: who will watch the watchers? Who can protect you against criminals? You say a state… but then, who will protect you against the state? No answer. That’s the impossibility of grand/ultimate watcher (a god state). And that’s my answer to you - every individual is a natural “watcher” so there is no need to give a monopoly to some of them so that they could “watch the others”.
I would reccomend thinking of oneself as a “radical liberal” (in the Misean sense) than worrying about the lable “anarchist”. It is better to look at and understand legal theory, econ, sociology etc rather than worrying about being or not being an anarchist, in my opinion. Also realize that the anarchy some at Mises may speak in favor of is not the same anarchy that is normally spoken of.
As far as “mob rule” is concerned, that would be inherently opposed to any pro-liberal/ market thinking.
